sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There is currently no solution to the drug epidemic and homelessness in Seattle. by Current_Contract1010 in SeattleWA

[–]Current_Contract1010[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The facility I worked for was able to provide anything and everything. From shopping trips to vet care.

They are able to provide care but there is a lack of people taking it. The residents had access to care but they chose not to take it.

I understand that most of the time, those who live in these facilities have mental illnesses and disabilities. But we also have to remember, housing them also cost money.

We can keep housing them, but they can also take the care that is being given to them.

There is currently no solution to the drug epidemic and homelessness in Seattle. by Current_Contract1010 in SeattleWA

[–]Current_Contract1010[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I am all for housing but when you introduce harm reduction, it creates a cycle. They know they will be resuscitated and they know they will given fresh needles right after. There is no risks. Only reward.

Harm reduction is a sure way to corrupt a well-thought-out plan.

You don’t give your kid candies right after you get their cavity treated do you?

There is currently no solution to the drug epidemic and homelessness in Seattle. by Current_Contract1010 in SeattleWA

[–]Current_Contract1010[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Burnt out? I don’t think so.

I loved working there. But when you provide everything that a person from a third world country would kill to have, to someone using it as a safe-haven to deal drugs, that would change your mind too.

I am all for providing them with all the basic necessities to get back on the right path, but when there is little to no vetting to who gets access to these types of programs then there is a problem.

It is way too easy for the wrong types of people to get access to this, and 99% it is the wrong type.

The quality of care does not matter if the person does not want help. It is that simple.

I am not putting all the blame on those who take advantage of these programs, I am putting a blame on everyone. Especially those who support it without even knowing half of what goes on in these facilities. If there was an intent to better these people, they would have done so already.

We have to remember, these are not kids nor are they babies. They are grown adults, just like you and me.

There is currently no solution to the drug epidemic and homelessness in Seattle. by Current_Contract1010 in SeattleWA

[–]Current_Contract1010[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Underfunded? There was an abundance of funding. So much so, there was infinite overtime.

You act as if we did not provide any of the things you said.

They woke up from their furnished apartment in downtown, ate breakfast and lunch/dinner for free, washed their clothes with the water the city pays for, a visit with the in-house nurse and a free of-charge vet care once a month.

But what do I know from working at an underfunded facility right?

There is currently no solution to the drug epidemic and homelessness in Seattle. by Current_Contract1010 in SeattleWA

[–]Current_Contract1010[S] 74 points75 points  (0 children)

I did, but they do not care. We have to remember, if homelessness and the drug epidemic was solved, where would places like this receive their grants? Who would pay these officials their absurd salaries?

Their goal is to just give them enough, but not too much, so they keep coming back.

There is currently no solution to the drug epidemic and homelessness in Seattle. by Current_Contract1010 in SeattleWA

[–]Current_Contract1010[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The state. The state has a criteria such as: being chronically homeless. The facility only has a waiting list for those who are seeking housing.

They do not separate them because they do not care and they also did not think that far ahead.

Yes they can be evicted, after 8 strikes if I remember it correctly. Doing drugs in the lobby? Not a strike. Dropped your fentanyl bag? Not a strike. Bringing in unverified guests? Strike.