[Sergeant Bob]

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35011)

Seattle to build apartments for drunks
Offering tax-funded food, services, place to imbibe together

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A project by Seattle city officials to house chronic alcoholics in a 75-unit apartment building where they can drink together has been approved by the Washington state Court of Appeals.

The $8.6 million project near downtown Seattle will offer tenants meals and support services in an attempt to provide enough stability to allow them to attend treatment programs, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.

In response, veteran Seattle commentator Ken Schram of KOMO-TV said he wished "we could take city officials to court simply for being stupid."

"If someone can explain to me how it helps to give alcoholics a cozy place to booze it up, I'd like to hear it," Schram said in an editorial.

"What's next?" he asked, "An 'honor bar' in their rooms."

The Seattle paper said the project will be built and managed with state, county and federal funding.

Local businesses are opposing the project, contending it will drive away business and residents, noting street alcoholics are commonly regarded as detrimental to a neighborhood.

At a hearing last year, however, a city official rejected that argument.

City Hearing Examiner Meredith Getches found that behaviors of chronic alcoholics who live on the streets can change once they have a stable home, the Seattle Times reported in November.

"Formerly homeless [chronic alcoholics] can be good neighbors and do not have those serious and harmful impacts on a neighborhood," Getches wrote.

Opponents hoped Getches would ban drinking in the building, the Times said.

But Bill Hobson, executive director of the Downtown Emergency Service Center, the nonprofit agency that would manage the apartments, insists abstinence is an unrealistic demand of alcoholics fresh off the streets.

[C.R.Sam]

Wonderful
Hard working, taxpaying non drunks get the priviledge of payin for this.

Balderdash.

Sam

[Standing Wolf]

...abstinence is an unrealistic demand of alcoholics fresh off the streets.

Unless I'm mistaken, "Skid Row" was the name of a street or alley in Seattle made infamous by hordes of drunks about a century ago.

Frankly, it seems to me if Seattle has such a budget surplus that it can provide for the comfort and well being of drunks, it ought to provide for the comfort and well being of firearms owners, who, after all, are generally tax payers rather than tax consumers. That way, firearms owners would have more money to spend on guns and reloading supplies and ammunition.

Maybe not, eh?

[USAFA]

When can I check myself in?

[sm]

Dear Seattle,

I am a gunaholic. I and others like me well, we have tried, but keep finding the slippery slope. If you would be so kind to build us a place to live, a range to accomodate our needs, guns, ammo, reloading supplies and the like we would be so grateful.

Unlike some whom suffer from addictive behaviors, we have found when we are around ,neighborhoods are safer and crime is lowered.

We feel your efforts will be rewarded and perhaps other cities will follow your example.

Respectfully,

[MicroBalrog]

Actually, alcoholism is more than just a drinking habit, but more of a disorder AFAIK.

What's wrong with the project?:confused:

[sm]

MicroBalrog-
My perception is, This project is using tax dollars to fund an oasis for those whom will take advantage of being on dole...using booze as a crutch.

I may get flamed, but don't care, so will qualify my reasoning further. I took my last drink in 1984. Alcoholism is a disease. A disease which the addiction to booze is the symptom of not dealing with life on life terms. Drunks can rationalize anything, and really really like a "crutch", see nothing is our fault. We cope best when we "drink at" a problem. We drunks are lawyers, doctors, nurses, cpa's...surprises people at the make up of persons at an AA meeting. Yep we have those with less education and monies too.

IMO, and IME the 12 steps of AA are fundamental to recovery. In treating this disease one HAS to treat the disease (living life on life terms) and not just treat the symptom (drinking).

I didn't go to or attend, and in fact resented those whom went to hospitals, high priced drying out places and such. Resentments are the # 1 bad thing for a drunk to have. My resentment was actually because people at that time wee not getting the 12 steps. They were getting dried out, using a crutch to maintain jobs, families, marriages and such. Oh they did well for a bit, then that crutch was not strong enough to support this progressive disease. Yep, though I've ben sober since '84, I start drinking again and in very short order I will be drinking as if I never stopped!

Now when the various hosptials, and treatment centers starting incorporating the 12 steps, I mean really doing so, the numbers of people really on the road and maintaining sobriety increased.

Alcoholism is a self diagnosed disease. A drunk has to hit his bottom--HAS to absolutley take step 1 for themself...nobody, can take this for them.

I suggest you read the AA 'big book', in it you will see besides the 12 steps, 12 traditions. The gist is AA self supported, we share with the professionals (med persons...etc) , and history has shown that 'projects' as Seattle proposes , provides a crutch.

These principles have been used for NA, SA, GA,OA...etc.
The private funded shelters used as a temporary means, where everyone in treatment volunteers by working whilst there. Those fancy high dollar places where even the well to do have to be humbled and mop a floor , work in the kitchen, do work. I have no problem with most of them. Give a drunk free room and board, no 12 steps, no responsiblity, and give him crutches, you have not helped a drunk, but have thorughly mis-used tax dollars. IMO

If I choose to donate my time and money thats my business, not the gummit, be it for drunks...or anything else.

So this project is, IMO, another one of those "the gummit gonna take care of us" with my tax dollars. Gummit keeps throwing monies ( taxes) at a symptom...not the disease. Many of us, especially those older than myself...but even I recall less gummit meddlin, and people being responsible for themself...for too long we have ...or rather gummit being buying and supplying crutches with tax monies.

IMO, IME.
So I was being a total smart-aleck in my previous post.

[c_yeager]

What this article fails to mention is that membership in this "project" does NOT require enrollment in alcohol treatment programs. Additionally, unlike similar projects this one has the "groundbreaking" idea of expressly PERMITTING the consumption of alcohol in the rooms. The idea being that no bum in his right mind would want to stay in a place that wouldnt let him get boozed up.

In a nut shell this is a rent free "rehab" apartment building in an extraordinarily "high rent" neighborhood that does absolutly nothing to discourage its tenants from being drunk.

If you dont see a problem with this then thats your problem. But, its MY tax dollars paying for it and i have some major issues with it. Especially considering how BROKE the city is. Our schools are falling apart. Our school teachers go on strike damn near EVERY year to get a 3% raise and this is how we spend our money? yeah its just great.

[MicroBalrog]

If you dont see a problem with this then thats your problem.

Some of the problems have a problems with ANY tax-funded aid program. If this one is bad, doesn't mean you can't have a better one.:)

[sm]

Agree with you c_yeager.

Micro...NO its not even a "better" use of tax monies, it is the use of tax monies period, and I'm not even in WA. Matter of principle...less gummit meddlin-period. Includes monies we citizens "pay in" called taxes.

[Waitone]

Entirely too many public employees with entirely too much time on their hands having access to entirely too much taxpayer money.

But why not? States are now offering undocumented transient international employees tuition rates below that which US citizens can get in their home state.

[Atticus]

Easy solution...just serve booze in jails.

I visited downtown Seattle last year, and was suprised by the number of homeless/drunks (usually in packs of 6 or more [six-paks]) roaming around. I was with my kids and felt pretty vulnerable, being unarmed. They need to build more jails.. not apartments. Treatment sounds great - but I'd bet that these folks have gone that route a dozen times or more.

[Skunkabilly]

Sounds like a fun place to hang out. Now all we need them to do is add tobacco and firearms, and the circle will be complete :D

[Mark Tyson]

Meanwhile, local governments everywhere are telling bars & restaurants that they can't alllow smoking even on their own property. Go figure. I guess some vices are favored more than others.

[Sergeant Bob]

I visited downtown Seattle last year, and was suprised by the number of homeless/drunks (usually in packs of 6 or more [six-paks]) roaming around.
I have a feeling this is exactly the reason they want to build this "Homeless Hotel". They probably think it will clean up the streets, bring more dollars downtown. The Liberal version of "Urban Renewal". These people will still be on the streets (especially if there are any restrictions placed on them), they'll just have a place to crash (and trash). Could you imagine the upkeep on a place like that?

[Brian Dale]

"Formerly homeless [chronic alcoholics] can be good neighbors and do not have those serious and harmful impacts on a neighborhood," Getches wrote. When they're still drinking? Name one.

Paris: "City of Light;" Minneapolis: "City of Lakes;" Seattle: "City of Enablers?"

[Keith]

Some of the problems have a problems with ANY tax-funded aid program. If this one is bad, doesn't mean you can't have a better one

Someday when you have a job, a wife and 2.5 kids to feed and educate as well as a mortgage, heat, light, fuel and insurance and a dozen other bills - and you watch your dwindling bank account and wonder (and begin to doubt) if you can get away to the beach for a week next summer for the one break in the monotony you call your life...
You'll begin to question why the government should take another piece of your hard-earned money and give it to somebody else - somebody who won't work and who won't deal with their own issues. You'll wonder why they are more entitled to your money than your own children are. You'll wonder why they should have free housing when you must pay so much for yours.
You'll realize that the extra money they take from you is the difference between a good education for your kids, and a crap one (or none at all). You'll realize that socialism takes away incentive to work harder - both for you and those who benefit from the money taken from you.

Mostly you'll just be resentful, and angry, and disappointed that your dreams and your childrens dreams are drained away to benefit those who won't work for their own dreams.

And when that day comes, you'll be a conservative...

Keith

[Marko Kloos]

A-men, Keith.

Libertarians (and to a lesser extent, conservatives) are often accused of opposing charity and being unwilling to"help those who need a hand". The truth is that we are not against any of those things at all. We fully support your right to help anyone you want to help, with your own damn money. I reserve the right to do the same with my money. If I think someone is in need of help, and I feel they are worthy of that help, I will freely give it. But I'll be damned if I concede any moral superiority to anyone who claims that it's more "fair" and moral for me to be forced to help others.

In the end, the argument of the social re-engineers always boils down to the statement that *they* would help others, but the majority of people wouldn't, so everybody must be made to give their "fair share". it's just good old elitism in action...they know what's good for society, and the unenlightened masses don't, therefore they have the right to force us to do what they know is best for us.

As the old saw goes, a liberal is someone who feels a great debt towards society...and proceeds to pay it off with other peoples' money.

[Nightfall]

Well put!

Those who earn their money should get to keep their money.

[saddenedcitizen]

All I can say is
D**N - wish I'd said that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Carlos]

Sounds like a fun place to hang out. Now all we need them to do is add tobacco and firearms, and the circle will be complete

Um, Skunk, you forgot Explosives. :neener:

I never cease to be amazed at the total nonsense the government does. I'm starting to really resent paying for this crap.

I drink, and I get up in the morning and go to work, stay out of the car if drunk etc., pay my bills.

Jails would be a better idea for drunks who don't want to go through the programs. Compulsory attendance, if you will. :)

[Balog]

Keith: that was beautiful. Of course, he might go all the way and become a libertarian.

[hammer4nc]

My initial reaction to this article was along the same line as others...disbelief and disdain. Govt. moneywasters.

For the sake of discussion, though, here's a different cost/benefit analysis I stumbled upon. Excerpted:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hobson told me that when Seattle's project opens, it will cost
just less than $10,000 a year per resident. That's about a third
of the annual cost of a jail cell in King County. That money buys
on-site clinical support specialists (three chemical dependency
counselors and a mental health clinician), a registered nurse,
two meals per day and a building staffed 24/7 by two or more.

According to a report from the King County Mental Health Chemical
Abuse and Dependency Services Division, the average chronic
public inebriate in downtown Seattle costs taxpayers more than
$100,000 a year in emergency room visits, jail time, police,
prosecutor and public defender time as well as detox time. A
recent study at Harborview Medical Center, focused on 20 homeless
chronic alcoholics, disclosed that in 1999 they averaged $89,000
per person in emergency room costs alone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HomelessNews/message/2958

This article fails to prove that giving the alcoholics a free place to sack out will actually reduce or eliminate the other costs, which seems to be a glaring omission. Might reduce it some, however.

[Keith]

How about we just don't pay any of those other costs (other than jail time for criminal behavior)? What would be the cost/benefit analysis of that?

Our society is actually ENABLING the behavior when we subsidize the personal/social costs this self-destructive behavior creates.

I have no problem with a private group that takes on the medical challenge of alcoholics and drug addicts, etc. But I fail to see why the taxpayer should be forced to deal with the issue. If they break the law, lock them up in a minimal security (cheap) facility for about a year. Something with tents and a lot of healthy and socially productive labor in the fresh air, comes to mind...

Other than that, I don't see that we owe them a thing. Let their families cover the cost, and if there is no family let Darwin and Old Man Winter deal with it.

Keith

[Keith]

that was beautiful. Of course, he might go all the way and become a libertarian

Hopefully. The line between conservative and libertarian is a blurry place.

Keith

[standingbear]

are they installing funnels on the key holes so they can get back in...:D :D

[feedthehogs]

Keith,
Well put!

I have an idea.
All those that think these type of programs are needed, put your money where your mouth is and invite them to stay at your house and you support them.

What say we throw a Tea Party.

Keep workin, millions on welfare depend on you!

[c_yeager]

I would LOVE to see how they figured that the average bum costs 100 grand a year. Of course its a mute point since i dont see how having an apartment is going to STOP these guys from making ER visits and ending up in jail.

[4570Rick]

This seems to be another example of Koyaanisqatsi.

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

It was a strange documentary by Godfrey Reggio that I think is more applicable today then it was in '82-'83, especially in light of the path the social engineers are trying to take us.:(