The Rainier Avenue, I-90 Overpass, Under-the-Bridge, Mansion Project ...
It's kind of insane - to think about the problem of homelessness. I am not crazy, I know there are no easy solutions - perhaps there are no solutions at all ... but that's awfully pessimistic.
Before I address the main issue of this post, I'd like to rant about Seattle's issues with homelessness, for a tad ...
I recall, from my army days, the concept of "triage" - which is similar to the concept as understood by most emergency care professionals:
1. Non-Ambulatory, but stable: these are the people you want to get on the ambulance to a hospital that can treat them ASAP.
2. Ambulatory, stable: these people can wait for care, beyond basic wound treatment, splinting, etc.
3. You're gonna die soon (no, they don't remotely call it that, but I'm going to call it that): these people are managed with pain meds. If you're in a field hospital, these are the cases that are deemed impossible to treat. Terminal. You don't throw a lot of resources at this group unless you have them.
The above groups, more or less, match most people's concepts of triage. You pick your battles. Bottom line, if you have finite resources, you partition your group into more workable categories, you prioritize them, for example (priority order, 1 being highest):
1. Homeless families, non-drug users, non-criminal, just need help: I believe this group must receive focus. They are at risk, they are homeless with children, they want and need some place stable to find a job and to become self sufficient again. If housing is to be built, especially if that insane "head tax" is passed, then the primary focus should be family supportive housing. Any who ... we need to help the homeless families first.
2. Homeless families, some instability, just need help: What "some instability" might mean is for a social worker (who likely doesn't use that terminology) to determine - could be one or both parents do drugs. Could be one or both parents have criminal issues. Could be one or both parents have mental health issues. This group, because children are involved, must be the second priority.
3. Homeless Single men and women, non-drug users, non-criminal, just need help: Like number 2 above, number 3 is critical. There are homeless single men and women out there, they need some place safe to kick-start themselves, but likely they would be back on their feet quickly. I was almost one of these. The good news, "The Apodments", where I live, seems to have solved this to some degree. They offer all-in-one studio living, all utilities included, for a very reasonable amount - I won't say how much, but it's significantly less than the average for Seattle. If it were me, and I were mayor (not likely - anarchist), I would see what the "Apodment" people are doing, and do that ...
4. Homeless mentally ill: This is a hard one for me, because I know, historically, mental illness has been used as a political tool, and a means of social control. As such, I'm not sure what the answer is here. I think you have to allow people to make a choice, but if they choose to get help then I think you need to fund a few more beds at the county hospital or set up some other kind of facility.
5. Homeless drug user: I liked that show "The Wire", and I'm not sure how much of it was true - but I will say that the idea of creating an area, location, where hard core drug users can use under observation, and with medical/police available ... well ... it's not a bad idea. It might be, TBH, given the cost of incarceration, and other costs to property, the cheapest solution - buy some land, fence it off, practice harm reduction, and that's where the drug users go. Some of these people will live out their short lives this way, some will see this as a way OUT. Because, to do this you need social workers and other people on hand to provide a way OUT.
My categories, above, are not complete, but I think you get the point. I'm not expert on homelessness, I'm just an ordinary middle-aged dude that thinks the bile leveled at the homeless needs to stop - but we also need to get realistic. We can't help everyone, but we can help some - and that means we need to make choices. I think taxes are crazy and government is incompetent (on a good day) - but Seattle needs to wake up and realize, that no matter WHO tries to tackle the homeless issue, some tough choices must be made. I'm really sorry my liberal Seattle snowflakes - but you can't save everyone, you will go broke and you will fail. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try by starting with homeless families that just need some help ... start there ... get the moms, dads, kids, the families, off the streets first.
That's my penny's worth of wisdom regarding Seattle's "homelessness problem" ...
Back to the core topic - check out these digs!!!
I take two buses to work, but my total commute isn't that bad - 45 mins, average, to and fro, on most days to the east side. My second bus leaves from the I-90/Rainier Ave Metro bus stop (take note assassins). Continuing ...
Whatever the case may be concerning assassins, there is a dude that is building a home - not a crappy one - under the bridge there, I've seen him nailing and sawing and insulating and he looks to be done. Sure, you have to ignore the tents, but he more or less built walls and a door under the bridge.
He might open a sports pub, for midgets ...
Is it safe? Healthy? Will the "state" come by and knock it over and tear it up? ans: "maybe, probably not, definitely".
But I have to say the dude put a lot of effort into it, and it seems like the structure (really amounting to walls) fits nicely in that area between the bridge and the concrete slab.
Cool ...
Great post about homelessness, am I right?
(awesome guys)
PS: If this guy were REALLY SLICK, he would camouflage or paint the outside of his dwelling to match the color, texture, of the bridge's concrete ... damn ... there's a product concept in this for REI ... "come and see our new expando concrete camo squares ... for living under briges ... water sealed ..."
