Before I get into today's issue, isn't it "curious" how the Met Police in the UK are investigating the allegations against Russell Brand and not against Dan Wootton? In fact the "mainstream media" has been rather coy in its reporting on the accusations against Wootton made by other men. You know what I'm starting to think? Since Wootton is a member of a "protected" demographic (and a useful Amber Heard dupe), and the claims against him are seen as perpetuating negative stereotypes against that demographic, it must be subverted by creating a new scandal that drowns it out because the accused and accusers fit the "narrative" better.
With that thought out of the way, it seems that homeless people are “everywhere,” not just in “liberal” cities, but in “conservative” rural areas, where they just have more places to hide. In Seattle, people questioned the policy of making the problem “disappear” by just clearing out encampments when they would just spring up somewhere else. So arrived the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and its “Partnership for Zero” plan, which envisioned eliminating “visible” homelessness; the “caveat” here is obvious, but no matter: if it is out-of-sight, it is out-of-mind.
There was supposed to be five “phases” of Partnership for Zero; it did at least “accomplish” Phase One, which was to establish a “command center” occupied by over-paid benchwarmers who spent more time arguing amongst each other than solving the homeless problem, and Phase Two “borrowing” the concept of a “by-name list,” supposedly reaching out to homeless people and determining what their specific “needs” were and direct them to the “proper channels.” Of course a place to live might be the first thing on the “list,” or at least you would think that was the “idea.” I mean, if you are an “able-bodied” person, you need an “address” and phone number to get a job.
Unfortunately, from what I can tell, a lot of homeless people are either people with mental health issues, people who are work-shy, and some appear rather young and may have been kicked out the house for being good-for-nothings. Others also could be people who just like the “quiet life” and prefer to not to have noisy neighbors.
In any case, I also mentioned that the King County Regional Homelessness Authority has made an absolute mess of things from the beginning as I suggested in the latter part of this post https://todarethegods.blogspot.com/2023/07/there-are-more-ways-to-waste-taxpayer.html although to the Seattle city council’s “credit” it did not commit to funding its wasteful activities, although the KCRHA apparently did receive taxpayer money from the federal government—and donations from some local big names:
Yet for all of that support did it even get past Phase Two? For your consideration:
We’ll take “ongoing” to mean still in the “in theory” phase, and that was confirmed last week in the Seattle Times, which reported that the KCRHA
has reversed course on its most ambitious plan since inception, putting nearly 40 people at risk of losing their jobs and upsetting city, county and business leaders.
The agency announced Tuesday morning that Partnership for Zero will end before completing its goal of reducing the number of people living outside in downtown Seattle to fewer than 30. In February 2022, when the pilot project was first announced, about 1,000 people were estimated to be living in the downtown core.
This swift change comes as the program’s initial funding expires and interim CEO Helen Howell reexamines the authority’s function and goals and moves it away from providing direct services to Seattle’s homeless population. Thirty-eight people are facing layoffs — about one-third of the authority’s total workforce — including 31 systems advocates who do outreach, case management and other social service help for people living outdoors in downtown and the Chinatown International District. Their jobs will be terminated Oct. 6.
Needless-to-say, many "civic-minded" businesses who wanted the homeless off the streets for their own reasons and pitched-in money are not happy seeing their money go to waste; no doubt they were expecting that "direct assistance" to the homeless. Now, I’ve already discussed some “local” issues concerning what got in the way of the county’s efforts to “fix” the problem, https://todarethegods.blogspot.com/2022/10/improving-homeless-shelter-capacity-in.html,where somewhat “ironically” instead of having to “tolerate” what looks like it would be one of the country’s best organized homeless facilities, the protesters from the International District have this unsightly mess to muse on instead:
In fact, if the county had not caved to the protesters (whose leaders admitted that they were not even expecting to "win") there wouldn’t have been a need for the KCRHA’s “creative” plan to nowhere. Supposedly before it shuttered, Partnership for Zero found housing for 231 people out of an “estimated” 1,000 on Seattle streets; one suspects, however, that by the time those people were housed a like number replaced them—or some of them wound-up back on the streets for various reasons, like mental health or “aggressive” behavior. According to the Times
Partnership for Zero systems advocates helped 53 people move from the hotels into permanent housing and 122 people into shelter or other temporary locations like a hospital or treatment center. Additionally, 110 people either returned to living on the streets, in their vehicle or with a loved one.
It is telling concerning the KCRHA’s perceived ineffectiveness that both the mayor and the King County Executive could only lament that “We believe for that approach (the now defunct "Zero" plan) to be successful, KCRHA must be a working part of the solution,” while The Downtown Seattle Association’s Jon Scholes added that “Partnership for Zero was the right approach that was executed in all the wrong ways. The effort lacked sound management, oversight and focus,” as quoted in the Times.
Part of the problem—well, a “big” part of the problem—was that there was a difference between the amount “pledged” from private donors, and what was actually “donated” to the KCRHA, and what funding it did receive, according to the Times, was one of those “issues” we often hear about “charitable” organizations: more money goes to the “human resources department” than to the people it is supposed to help. The Times notes that
When the program started, several nonprofits took notice of the wages that systems advocates earned — higher than many front-line nonprofit staff who do the same work. For example, one current advocate, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing employment, cited a starting salary of $82,500. As a result, many established homeless organizations lost staff to the new initiative.
Now, all those people will be soon out of their comfy positions looking for work; many of the people working in those relatively well-paying positions were those with “experience” with homelessness, and they may have to get “experienced” with it again. As noted in my taxpayer post, the so-called “Continuum of Care Board” was better known for acting like unruly children than getting anything useful done.
“Ironic,” isn’t it? Even in a “liberal” city like Seattle with a “plan” to end homelessness simply cannot get it done. “Best intentions” and the “grassroots” approach is no substitute for putting someone in charge who can push his or her weight around and get things done, discarding the useless and ignoring the complaints of NIMBYs who have no legitimate complaint. But here, people talk big and occasionally approve of funding of socially progressive projects like more “crisis” mental health clinics, but actually getting things done for "strangers" isn’t on top of the “to-do list” for most superstars-in-their-own-minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment