> You can ask my question about any city though: for every 1000 broken car windows, how many convictions (or even arrests) are there? I know that number is extremely low in Seattle as well.

There's two reasons this type of crime occurs: gang activity and homelessness. People turning to gangs represents a crisis in opportunity. Things like hate groups, gangs, etc do not generally occur in places where peoples needs are met and when opportunity to change your circumstances if desired are bountiful.

> That’s been the cornerstone of policy in cities like Seattle for years and that’s why those cities have the biggest problem.

The problem is actually both. Progressive policies fail because progressives are allergic to enforcement, conservative policies fail because conservatives are allergic to addressing underlying causes. It's a tale as old as time.

If you want to improve things you need to address underlying causes like the housing and opportunity crisis. Enforcement can be used in a way that changes their circumstances rather than putting them in a box. You need both.

Conservative policies can succeed if there is a progressive city just across Lake Washington. Why smash windows in a place where the police will harass you if you can be in a place where they don’t? Well, it works locally at least.

I see how treating underlying causes would help, but people are mobile, so doing it with local resources is never going to be a winner. So conservative solutions will show more effect locally than progressive ones, unfortunately, and local voters want to see improvement, not futility.

The other problem is that we are still conflating a drug crisis with a homeless crisis, the people busting your car window and stealing your Amazon packages are more likely in the former category even if they might be in the latter.

I agree, having broader agreement on how tackle these issues is key. We don't do that well right now and I suspect that strongly correlates to rivaling political parties in an age of divisiveness that cannot work together to formulate a cohesive plan.

I'll say this again, as I stated in another comment, there are different reasons for homelessness. Some people are just in a bad rut and need a stable place to go while they sort their lives out. This is the minimum order of difficulty; build damn shelters, and resource centers, and these folks will get help first.

The larger component of homelessness has mental health or drug issues and far more overlap with gang activity root causes. It's worth trying to solve those together and taking an approach that instead of demonizing them for their choices/mistakes seeks to help them set their lives on a more stable path.

Mental health related homelessness requires access to healthcare that can fund whatever they need to be on and courts that can recognize this is the case.

It is true that there are different causes to homelessness, totally agree. But the person pilfering packages, looking for things in cars, or shoplifting at target, is not going to be your typical economic homeless case, their is already a selection beyond being homeless going on at that point.

> far more overlap with gang activity root causes

I have no idea why you are talking about gang activities in retaliation to homelessness, since we have plenty of homelessness in Seattle and virtually no gang activity. I'm guessing that is more of a Californian thing?

> It's worth trying to solve those together and taking an approach that instead of demonizing them for their choices/mistakes seeks to help them set their lives on a more stable path.

We really need to do both? The choices definitely need to be demonized, lest our kids think they are OK choices. My greatest fear would be my kid somehow makes these bad choices in the future because our schools taught him that these people were just victims of society rather than victims also of their choices.

> Mental health related homelessness requires access to healthcare that can fund whatever they need to be on and courts that can recognize this is the case.

We've found this to be problematic because cases will be misdiagnosed as mental health problems when they are really severe substance abuse problems (or the patient will say they don't have a substance abuse problem given the stigma associated with it), to predictable ineffectiveness.

> I'm guessing that is more of a Californian thing?

I live in Portland, but yes, it is more of a Portland thing. The visible things that create opposition to our homelessness policies are:

- Store looting, which is mostly driven by a scheme developed by gangs. Gangs are often enlisting the homeless to carry out these stunts.

- Open air drug use, which requires drugs facilitated by gangs

- Property crime, which is either done by gangs or is incentivized by gang-related activity

"Organized crime" is probably a better term than "gang" here. Gangs are generally recruiting in places where opportunity is low and costs are averagely above peoples means. My point is that there's some overlap with homelessness and we'd benefit by looking at them equally empathetically.

> We really need to do both? The choices definitely need to be demonized, lest our kids think they are OK choices. My greatest fear would be my kid somehow makes these bad choices in the future because our schools taught him that these people were just victims of society rather than victims also of their choices.

What you've said here and what I've said are slightly different. Holding people accountable is important, yes. If they are unwilling to change their ways they should be held accountable. At the same time, when someone struggling with drugs or mental health says, "I want help" there's a short window of time where that help can be transformational. Once they've chosen to right their life, and demonstrated it, we need to provide them capacity to move on, which is where we fall short these days. If you've been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether you're homeless at the time or not, then it'll be difficult if not impossible for the person to gain and maintain meaningful employment that pays their bills in a capitalist society. This situation can put people right back into the cycle of drug use, homelessness, a mental health crisis, or all of the above. Mainly, what I'm saying is when someone has demonstrated reform we need to stop punishing them at some point.

> We've found this to be problematic because cases will be misdiagnosed as mental health problems when they are really severe substance abuse problems (or the patient will say they don't have a substance abuse problem given the stigma associated with it), to predictable ineffectiveness.

I wouldn't call it problematic, I'd call it frustrating, because typically it's both. Again, addressing one problem ends up persisting both problems. I blame this, again, on policy that doesn't understand the systems it's up against.

Oh, ya, there is definitely some organized crime mixed into it, and the fences for stolen goods need to be dealt with. But frankly, it doesn't require a lot of organization when the police are being so lack on their enforcement (mostly because they are understaffed, not because they are lazy or anything). Anyone can do property crime, and there are lots of avenues to convert booty into some cash.

> Mainly, what I'm saying is when someone has demonstrated reform we need to stop punishing them at some point.

Sure, but we aren't asking for that anymore. Its like...ok treatment, but if you don't take it, you still get to walk, so why bother? Jail isn't in the cards anymore unless you at least bash someone's head in, and even then its questionable. Also, our system now seems to be based on financial disincentives (e.g. you get your car towed if you park illegally) and that really doesn't matter to someone who has nothing to lose (e.g. the towing companies won't go near certain vehicles because they know they are never getting paid). We need to do everything possible, maybe throw most of our resources at, people getting to a point that they have nothing to do lose (e.g. make sure felons after jail/prison have a way forward that they don't want to lose).

Let’s set aside the gang question for a bit and stick to homelessness. Homelessness isn’t the root cause of the crimes committed by homeless people. The “invisible homeless” who sleep on a buddy’s couch, sometimes even have jobs, and never smash car windows or anything like that are a silent majority of homeless people.

Instead, for the criminal minority of homeless people, the root cause of their homelessness isn’t a housing shortage or a lack of opportunity; it’s extreme untreated drug addiction or mental illness. This is also the root cause of their criminal behavior. If you try to give those people housing, they will just end up destroying it. These are not functional human beings acting rationally.

If you want to address the root cause here, you’re going to need to involuntarily commit these people to drug rehab or psychiatric treatment. Enforcement and addressing underlying causes go hand in hand here: if you arrest drug-addicted or mentally ill people for the crimes they commit, you already have them in state custody and you can just transfer them into involuntary commitment. We need to build and staff the facilities to do that, but that’s the solution.

Sure, I don't think you and I are saying anything different. Progressive cities must have a plan for enforcement at the same time as having a plan for treatment.

People that are homeless and just need a place to live because they don't make much money are one story, and that does need an alternative but common approach to homeless that are committing crimes. They will all need housing at some point in that flow chart.

I mention gangs because homeless folks with mental health issues and drug addiction commit similar crimes for similar reasons as gangs. I disagree that a "minority" of homeless people commit crime. I live in SouthEast Portland and I watch these folks chop up bicycles, steal property and food, and do drugs openly in parks and on the side walk. That also invites gang activity into an area because the homeless become vectors for more drug use and territory expansion. Ignoring the interconnectedness of these things is a giant mistake, as well as the similarity in their underlying causes.

> People that are homeless and just need a place to live because they don't make much money are one story, and that does need an alternative but common approach to homeless that are committing crimes. They will all need housing at some point in that flow chart.

But at that point you’re talking about housing people who are leaving state custody. It’s not really a common approach because on the one side you’re talking about how you release people from prison or involuntary commitment and on the other side you’re talking about helping peaceable but impoverished people get housing.

> I disagree that a "minority" of homeless people commit crime. I live in SouthEast Portland and I watch these folks chop up bicycles, steal property and food, and do drugs openly in parks and on the side walk.

You wouldn’t see the ones who sleep on a buddy’s couch and mind their own business though.

Homeless activists like to cite a lot of statistics about how the majority of homeless people just can’t afford housing and aren’t mentally ill drug addicts. What they’re missing is that the actual social problem people care about is the crime and public disorder.

> I mention gangs because homeless folks with mental health issues and drug addiction commit similar crimes for similar reasons as gangs.

I’m not sure I agree with that. But it turns out that I think there’s a very similar solution to gangs as there is to homeless criminals though: lock them all up. That seems to be working in El Salvador.