Seattle activists are addicted to helping the poor stay poor

I’m not a big fan of government committees. Sometimes they’re way too big, oftentimes they’re not adequately balanced, set up to simply push a predetermined agenda. This is especially the case in Seattle.

But sometimes, admittedly, there’s real value to these committees, especially when their crazy ideas get leaked to the press. I find value in highlighting how out-of-control some of these activists really are; and these are the activists who control city government.

Case in point was when it was revealed that Mayor Ed Murray’s housing committee believed that Seattle needs to move away from the idea of a family living in their own home.

“We can still be a city for everyone, but only if we give up our outdated ideal of every family living in their own home on a 5,000 square foot lot,” a draft letter from the committee co-chairs reads, according to The Seattle Times.

Now, one could make a pretty decent argument that we should move away from new single-family homes because of how quickly Seattle is growing. We expect tens of thousands of new people moving to the area and simply building outward, rather than upward, isn’t the smartest strategy.

Related: This is how you help solve homelessness

It’s what LA did as they developed. They decided to build out instead of up and as a result, they now struggle with traffic because you’ve got people living far away from the places where they work. In Seattle, you’re starting to see similarities.

You’re not allowed to build too high up in Seattle because housing activists say it ruins the feel of neighborhoods; it apparently takes away from the character. But then the housing activists are upset that they’re being priced out of their homes because supply/demand is an actual concept; that when you have a high demand and limited supply, the price goes up.

So one could argue against single family home.

But like everything a Seattle activist does, this recommendation can’t be based in logic and reason… oh no. It has to be based in social justice.

The Seattle Times wrote, “The draft report notes that ‘Seattle (single-family) zoning has roots in racial and class exclusion and remains among the largest obstacles to realizing the city’s goals for equity and affordability.'”

So, they’re making a social justice claim which shows the committee to be woefully unprepared to actually help with the so-called housing crisis. They’re choosing to look at this issue through an ideological lens, and when you do that, you’ve got blinders on; blinders to absolutely everything that doesn’t adhere to your strict ideological viewpoints.

These people have no idea what’s best for the city. They push their ideology on us every single day and the city is worse off because of it.

Want the brutal truth as to what’s best for Seattle? It’s the same thing that’s best for Tacoma, Everett, and Bellevue or Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas and New York.

It’s a simple truth: catering to the poor is never what’s best for a city. Never. Making it easier for low-income or no-income folks to find housing is never, under any circumstance, better for a city.

What’s best is pretty simple: you help people who are low or no income put themselves in positions to afford to live in the city.

The lower income the neighborhood, the higher the rate of violence those communities have. Crime tends to be the highest in low-income areas. You can look at the study for the World Bank by Norman Loayza and Daniel Lederman that showed a positive correlation between income inequality and crime rates. You can look at the work of economist Gary Becker that shows the economic growth of any country’s economy actually lessens incidents of crimes.

So rather than saying, “Hey, we need to get rid of housing that wealthier and middle class people can afford so the poor can find a home,” the conversation should be about how to address income inequality in a meaningful way.

But when you’re looking at this ideologically, you don’t address the problems, you address the symptoms.

And after spending some time in Portland over the last few days, and walking from Union Station back home through downtown Seattle, it dawned on me that a lot of progressive politicians and activists in charge of these cities don’t actually want to cure the problems; they just want to take credit for offering some amenities and benefits to the poor.

I’m starting to believe they like that these people – low and no-income folks – are dependent on them.

I think they they love the idea that they’re in a position of power to spend other people’s money to make the lives of low-income and no-income folks a bit easier, without having to actually work on taking them out of that low place they find themselves in. I think they get meaning, they get life satisfaction, by giving the homeless a park to sleep in. Or a bus or streetcar to take for free. Or a street corner to use as they see fit (which as I saw this week, still includes open-air drug dealing). Why? Because then they’re heroes to these people.

I’ve spent some time feeding the homeless at the Union Gospel Mission (generally, I find it self-aggrandizing to talk too much about your own charitable efforts, but I have a point. I promise). It feels amazing because you’re helping people. You see their face light up with the help you’re offering. It’s an addictive feeling.

But what happens when they stop coming to you for help? They stop feeding that addiction you have to help people the way you’re used to. You crash a bit (like a sugar crash, in a way). It doesn’t feel as good.

So what happens is they do what they can to keep doing the good work, helping people, but I think subconsciously they’re helping to maintain a system where they offer them just enough help to keep them in the bad position they’re in. So they keep coming back for more.

I don’t think most of these activists are doing this for some nefarious reason; I don’t think they realize what they’re doing many times. I think it’s human nature for some. It’s like an actual addiction where you perpetuate behavior that feeds your addiction.

I don’t think it’s as satisfying to fix the actual problem to the point where they don’t need you for help anymore. Because our addiction is fed by individual actions: serving someone a hot meal every single day gets you several instances of euphoria.

Fixing the problem so they don’t come back? I mean, yeah that’s great, but you’re still craving the daily experience of helping, of being needed by these people; so ultimately you’re not going to be satisfied.

I think we have that problem playing itself out here where you have activists who want to feed their own addiction by doing things that make people who are less well off, actually dependent on the activists.

I was in Portland over the July 4 weekend and something I noticed was how much the city just allows the homeless population to do whatever they want to do. I walked around, ran into a ton of folks who, on the surface, actually look like they’re choosing to be homeless.

Related: Everett homeless awareness plan a complete mistake

Normally I reject that line of thinking because it falls into the hateful nonsense when people just shout out, instinctively, “Hey stop being lazy, get a job!” But I was looking at some of these people and they looked resigned to not better themselves.

They were just hanging out in the city’s parks. They have a ton of parks and open space in downtown Portland, but almost none can be enjoyed because they’re just giant spaces for the homeless to camp out and chill and relax. And I say that because for the three days I was there, I walked passed the same parks constantly and I saw the same people doing the exact same thing: nothing. Just sitting there.

They seemed content to live homeless because the city of Portland allows it; they don’t really appear to do anything to break up their havens.

Portland has created an environment where, rather than help these people get out of their situation, they make their situation easier for them to deal with,. When you make it too easy, you lose incentive to get out of the situation, especially when you’re think it’s hopeless.

The same is true in Seattle. I get on the South Lake Union streetcar and people walked on who didn’t pay. They talked openly about not paying. I walked from Union Square to that streetcar and passed homeless people just sort of camped out, not doing a thing.

And we make it in Seattle so their life is easier; but we don’t do much to get them out of that position.

Think about it for a second. Activists push for tent cities. Ed Murray pushes for tent cities even though he admits it doesn’t help the problem. Yet he pushes it, like so many other activists do. That won’t get them out of the homeless situation they’re in. Not by a long shot. But we put money and time into that idea rather than one that gets them to a point where they don’t need a tent city to begin with.

Related: Unbelievable activist anger over homeless smoking ban

The activists tried to fight a smoking ban in parks because it might make life uncomfortable for the homeless.

Why didn’t they push the idea that the homeless shouldn’t smoke to begin with? That’s part of a solution to their problems! You push them towards quitting something that will kill them.

But they pushed back because they wanted to stand up for the homeless. The people these activists actually pity.

They pity them. They don’t think they’ll ever achieve greatness, and so rather than push them away from the problems they’re dealing with, rather than finding a cure for what ails them, they treat some of the ailments. It’s an arrogant place to be. It’s not going to help anyone.

And this single-family zoning issue is representative of that way of thinking. We’ll help you be comfortable with the situation you’re in, rather than help you get out of the uncomfortable situation you’re in.