Really feels like the left and the right hate Seattle for completely different reasons! Will not end well for Seattle. So many negative vibes.

Since you brought the subject up it just so happens that a homeless individual just the other day did set fire to Catherine Blaine Elementary school and caused over $10,000 in damage. There ave been a number of wildfire also started by homeless people with damages in the millions. There was a big one in the Medford area of Oregon where many people were killed and lost homes (poor people not wealthy); the fire was deliberate arson. I suspect that when the fire season starts this year we will be seeing lots more; and I mean by deliberate arson.

"Kroman: "Last year, a car or truck crashed into a building in Seattle on average every 3½ days—more than 100 times." And yet there is none of this Seattle Is Dying business when it comes to this real and very costly crisis. "

In contrast, the Seattle Fire Department responded to 1,538 encampment fires in 2022.* Just throwing this out there, but it's possible homelessness generates more "outrage" because it is a much bigger problem than vehicles colliding with buildings.

*https://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-safety/articles/seattle-fd-crews-responded-to-1538-encampment-fires-in-2022-vzNyX1T9Yld3RfOK/

our Emotions are
there for the Taking
& manufacturing Con-
sent is an Investment in YOU.

today on a podcast
diet pepsi was touted
as you doing You free
to be whom you ARE
& no one Else . doing
Pepsis with Purpose
as only YOU Can be-
cause you are YOU.

so fucking
Empowering
sweet tasting
diet caffeine
can only mean
Good Things.

so have Another
and Revel in
just being
YOU.

obey.
your.
Thirst.

so Glad you're
Still Here Chas.

Cars don't crash into buildings. People drive cars into buildings or people lose control of cars they are driving and crash into buildings. Cars are not sentient, autonomous entities that drive themselves into buildings.

I think maybe if the people crashing cars into buildings were just allowed to keep doing it without facing any consequences, there would be more outrage.

"Why is the city not directing its ire at accidents instead of homeless encampments?" is a question that shows, like Fox News, that The Stranger thinks its readers are stupid.

The outrage directed at homeless encampments is because of conscious choices the inhabitants are making that aren't accidents. Unlike, you know, the car ACCIDENTS when people crash into buildings that aren't intentional choices by the driver.

One is an intentional decision. The other is an accident. It's deeply unfortunate that The Stranger thinks its readers are so stupid and conflates the two.

@7 You think people choose a life of misery eating scraps, sleeping on pavement, and mired in addiction and mental illness?

Ok. Go ahead and choose it then.

Burn all your possessions. Give away all your money. Start smoking meth. Try it out for a few months. And if it's such and easy choice then you should have no problem choosing not to.

Report back in six months.

@8.....I don't think that anyone chooses a life of homelessness but all too often they fall into it and unless they can pull themselves out and by that I mean real soon they tend to lose all hope; they try to quell their depravity with drugs and very soon the law of the jungle takes over. They fall so low that there is no hope for most.

@8: Yes, our oft-banned Prof’, you are indeed correct: the homeless camps in Seattle are largely populated by persons suffering from mental disorders, including those disorders which lead to addictions. That is blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever walked past an encampment in Seattle.

However, to Charles and the Stranger, anyone who dares to agree with you on this can have done so for only one possible reason: KOMO and “Seattle Is Dying” have brainwashed that person right into becoming a homeless-hating zombie. Charles and the Stranger know — simply know! — that every homeless person in Seattle is an angelic Victim of Capitalism. Every last one was a happy, healthy, hard-working, productive, salt-of-the-earth, sixth-generation native of Seattle, who was forcibly driven out into the street by none other than Robo-Bezos itself. Full stop.

(Oh, and Prof’? Those campers do have at least some agency. Most were never stably housed in Seattle, but had the wherewithal to move to Seattle anyway. So they do bear some small amount of responsibility for the trouble they cause in Seattle.)

homes for everyone

Want to reduce the number of cars crashing? Enforce traffic laws. That would require more cops. That and require bollards in front of Pot shops.

Charlie baby.....I read your little story three times and I struggle to see the point. Trying to equate auto accidents with drug zombies in order to dunk on the Seattle is Dying folks? It isn't working. Even xina gets it.

@8 Well, the folks at the encampment described in the article below decided to run a full on meth lab. But, sure, side with Crazy Charles.. cars are the problem!

Chuck: below is why people are more outraged at homeless encampments. Take the L, genius.

https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2023/02/10/encampment-fire-unveils-several-guns-bundles-of-cash-and-narcotics/

Not only does Charles, of all writers, accuse someone else of not understanding economics, but how can we allow this particular piece of brilliance to go unpraised?

“And, yes, this means the left is in a terrible position. We can only make voters feel outrage if we buy it. This, I think, is the source of the negative energy directed at Kshama Sawant, and why mainstream Dems are politically viable: she refuses to buy the needed emotions for her issues.”

Charles, you on the left are in a terrible position because voters in Seattle did the worst possible thing that could ever be done to you: they gave your ideas a try. They actually elected persons to put your programs into action. The result was a complete disaster. You see, it’s one thing to scribble drunkenly upon cocktail napkins the outline of tomorrow’s masterpiece hangover post quoting obscure Marxist hipster economists. It’s another to actually make something work. In Seattle, the terms “progressive” and “left” now mean tents, drugs, needles, garbage, suffering, and crime everywhere. And that is because of the politicians and policies the Stranger endorsed and defended.

Speaking of those politicians, yes, Charles, you nailed it. CM Sawant now quits ahead of losing because she didn’t traffic in enough outrage. She didn’t attack enough of her fellow citizens with sufficient amounts of negative emotion. She didn’t practice enough adversarial, confrontational, bullying, belittling, my-way-or-the-highway, compromise-is-treason politics. She didn’t demonize her fellow citizens of Seattle with sufficient vitriol. She didn’t direct enough hatred against anyone who disagreed with her in the slightest. She didn’t often enough tell her fellow citizens of District 3 that she would not represent them because they were evil. She didn’t even scapegoat Amazon enough!

Yes, Charles, Seattle’s politics didn’t have enough negativity and outrage. That’s the problem.

My friend, a 90 lb Japanese woman had her head caved in and four ribs broken yesterday on Marion and 3rd by a person lacking a home. Hours later a zombie bum rushed me and forced his way into my building leading to a violent confrontation. Every morning at work we clear tens of needles from the storm drain. I have witnessed both the kings dim sum accident and another building accident in person on 67th and Roosevelt over a 20 year period. No injuries in those cases. Charles' inability to see the differnce on peoples lives is part of his myopia. Why believe your lying eyes when you can have a capitalist scapegoat.

@8 -- do I think people choose to be mentally ill? Of course not. Do I think many people in homeless encampments make choices totally unrelated to mental illness to do things that negatively impact others? Of course I do. Anyone with working senses can see that in Seattle every day. An unwillingness by people like you to acknowledge that distinction exists is what has frustrated so many people, as indicated by the rapidly changing political climate in Seattle.

Let's really help those who need it. But let's not pretend that there aren't people victimizing others who need to be held accountable, either. And getting back to this article, let's not pretend that some old person who hits the gas instead of the brakes and plows into a building is anything like someone who steals someone's property to feed their drug habit. Because you'll find near universal understanding for the former, not for the latter. Unless you're obtuse, it's easy to understand why.

I think you might need new friends Charles and update your news sources to expand outside of your circle. I read about and hear politicians repeatedly talking about dangerous driving patterns and how more change is needed. The city lowered the limit to 25 on all city streets and 20 on residential streets, added traffic curbing methods where deaths have happened and things were improving until Sawant got her poopy hands involved. People are tired of the hysteria driven politicians like her and want pragmatism again. Screaming politicians are geriatric relics of the past and eloquence is the new standard we want in our politicians.

I imagine most distractions are caused by texting and driving.

It would have been difficult to establish street seating for restaurants if this font of outrage in the war on cars had not been suppressed.

Charles' is such a literary chef!

Juxtapose two discordant things that nobody else would ever think of comparing
Attribute one of them as the result of evil capitalists
Season with rambling thoughts to taste
Serve and enjoy

Hardly "discordant". It occurred to me just now as it is "trash day" on my street and I heard simultaneously the collection of waste and recycling and compost with the sound of the siren of a fire truck. Both occupying the same stretch of street. Both necessary yet one has priority. Which one? Charles is simply asking why is "Seattle is Dying" so important while the selfsame businesses, homes etc are being decimated by again a selfsame menace. But why are the two treated unequally by the mavens of the capitalist? A couple of weeks ago a jackass was "drifting" on an intersection up the way at 3 AM. The homeless somewhere tucked away for the night. All Charles underscored is that there is always a spectrum of similar outcomes/annoyances but completely different fixations.

And all you people are fucking idiots for not seeing his precise point. Yes there are differences but the burden on this "dying city" is not because of the encampments but the result of the entire system -- which taken as a whole happens to include vehicles being driven into buildings.

I shouldn't have called anyone "fucking idiots" as I always enjoy the conversation on SLOG. If I could edit that I would.

@23.....Was that an apology? Didn't sound like it.

I think it's ironic that The Stranger suddently cares about property. When the homeless are stealing from Target and other business, that is something to be celebrated. But when people with vehicles crash into a small business, suddenly, all the concern comes out.

I read articles from The Stranger and I also read articles from MyNorthWest... I read them to stay informed and I find both publications to be terribly offensive and completely removed from what the people of Seattle actually need.

Maybe the editors from both of these rags should get together and trying writing something that would be useful to the community?

Who am I kidding though? That will never happen.

@22: As noted @3, there were ~15 times as many encampment fires* as there were car-building altercations in Seattle last year. These two sets of events are “discordant” because:

Seattle needs vehicles;
Seattle needs buildings;
Both buildings and vehicles tend to carry insurance to pay for repairs.

None of this is true for homeless encampments. Seattle got along just great without homeless encampments for many decades, and someday will again.

Also, from the link @3: “Seattle Fire Fighters Union IAFF Local 27 members told city leaders last year that firefighters were reporting being assaulted at encampment fires, which included being threatened with weapons.”

If assaulting a firefighter does not generate “outrage,” then what should? Sadly, Charles did not address this aspect of the topic he chose.

*Encampment fires large enough to justify SFD response. The actual number of encampment fires is likely larger.

Where is the outrage? ---I think they are saving the outrage for this really stupid, disconnected article.

My God what a steaming pile of baloney and riduculours comparison. One has nothing to do with the other... its simply a dialogue to distract the conversation and focus on the plaque and ineffectual solutions to the problems attendant thereto.

Its like saying downtown is fine, retail is doing great, the crime isn't bad.... but that isn't the case is it?

Charles, are you OK?

To whoever might still be reading this thread: The obvious case was made by Charles. He made it obvious for you by writing it and hitting his enter key. Here is what he said: if we are to prioritize damage to property (as we should) why are we made to think Seattle is dying only because of "riffraff" and such in a socially unacceptable way but accept the same damage in an unfortunate but equal cost when it is meted out in an acceptable way? It means the Seattle is Dying trope is done so in bad faith and not with a further view of living within a shared territory. Both, I believe he was saying, were bound to happen therefore why the prioritization. All he did was poke a hole in the logic in the greater scheme of things. And it made you react.

@22, 23, 29: I don't believe anyone commenting has missed the point Charles was trying to make. Rather, most seem to recognize this for what it was: a false equivalency.

Charles' writing is very formulaic, so this is a very standard approach. He will see something in the news (here, the Seattle times article on car crashes), attempt to tie it to one of his own previously expressed viewpoints (people who think homelessness has an adverse effect on Seattle businesses are wrong), and may or may not throw in references to economic theory. It's tedious stuff, and seldom compelling, but he rarely deviates from this model.

I am so disappointed in the city's discourse about homelessness, which Charles highlights effectively here. That most commenters don't get it is just a further indictment of how degraded our social fabric is.

The way to improve homelessness it to provide housing, and then also provide better services for the problems that accompany homelessness. We have a mishmash of programs that simply don't get people help, and the only alternative to all that wasted money that is put forth is to do nothing, blame the most vulnerable in society, and watch everything continue to get worse.

These issues are linked more than in the rhetorical fashion that Charles is using them. One reason we have expensive housing is that we still prioritize cars over people in this city. And that expensive housing (paired with a lack of public or social housing) is the major factor in increased homelessness. That we shrug our shoulders at systemic problems that encourage vehicular assault and destruction of property is just more evidence that our society is broken. The sense that we are humans with a common purpose is lost.

"Last year, a car or truck crashed into a building in Seattle on average every 3½ days—more than 100 times."

Where is this building? Can we move it to a safer location? Perhaps build a street through were it is now so cars can just drive right through.

15 We know you despise homeless people and lie about them on a regular basis. You also despise anyone that does not agree with you.

You personally attacked me on a thread although you do not know me at all and falsely accused me of drinking rot gut at the end of the month and that is when my comments are written.

How any one can take your comments seriously after you slander people on this thread
and make up lies about them is shameful.

ah Ivy tentsore's
testy 'cause his property
values far exceed his Humanity
plus he seems to Love him a little Denigration

or so it Appears.

"That we shrug our shoulders
at systemic problems that encourage
vehicular assault and destruction of property
is just more evidence that our society is broken."

there's a Bingo.

while Billionaires
Exist we Shall have
Homeless. it's a Choice

but it's so fucking
hard to see because
Sinclair TeeVee don't
Want for You to See it.

@31 "That we shrug our shoulders at systemic problems that encourage vehicular assault and destruction of property is just more evidence that our society is broken."

What led you to believe Charles was writing about vehicular assault? His screed only references a single crash, that Dim Sum King incident from 2020. In that incident, a driver was attempting to park and lost control, and the resulting crash was characterized as an accident.

One time one of the Monorail trains crashed into the station at the Center House. Seattle is Dying didn't give a damn about that, either.

@29: “…but accept the same damage in an unfortunate but equal cost when it is meted out in an acceptable way…”

Charles was in no way claiming the damage to Seattle from car-into-building crashes was equal to the damage caused by homeless persons. Rather, as @30 noted, Charles is claiming the damage to businesses from car-into-building crashes greatly exceeds the damage done to businesses by homeless criminals:

‘Now imagine for a moment if Seattle Times reported that homeless people destroyed, on average, "buildings and homes... every 3½ days." And this destruction often runs "into the tens of thousands and [can] sideline businesses for months." My god. We would never hear the end of it. It would pump millions into political campaigns.’

I noted this false comparison @26, and will take it further here. Owners of buildings, businesses, homes, and cars all carry insurance against accidents, which pays to rebuild the damage caused by these crashes. Nobody compensates, or finances the recovery of damages caused by, homeless persons who steal and assault. The victims just have to get by as best they can.

“It means the Seattle is Dying trope is done so in bad faith and not with a further view of living within a shared territory.”

Yes, that was indeed Charles’ point, and as @30 also noted, Charles is not above using a false equivalence to make that point.

Before you (repeatedly) lecture your fellow commenters here on their supposed lack of reading comprehension, you might first want to demonstrate some reading comprehension of your own.

number of times I have seen a car crash into a building: zero
number of times being accosted by mentally ill person downtown: every damn time

one does not need the news media to tell them what they can see with their own eyes.

good comparison, Charles. A+ work.

how is this article not garden variety whataboutism?

upset about syringes in the park? you know who else is messing up parks? dog owners who don't pick up the poop. you don't hear people talking about dog waste - do you? shame Seattle.

Now that we’ve sorted out Charles’ latest bout of whataboutism, I can clean up a few loose comments.

@33: If I truly despised homeless people, I’d make them live in filthy encampments and refuse services. If I really, really despised them, I’d use them as human chattel in political theatre productions. (Have you ever voted for anyone who so cruelly exploited homeless persons?)

“… falsely accused me of drinking rot gut at the end of the month and that is when my comments are written.”

That’s actually the opposite of what I wrote. Please read harder next time.

@34: You might want to think a bit longer before swallowing Ivy’s poisonously alcoholic reflux. Your swallowing that stuff may help to explain why your “Bingo” @35 was immediately invalidated @36. That’s a rapid defeat, even for you.