California homelessness? (San Francisco: 2015, apartment complexes, lease)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by artillery77

We had homeless, we didn't have a homeless problem, and stories really varied.

The point being, the homeless had a community, and they were part of the community. The best many could offer was to not be a nuisance, but that was acceptable.

That was pretty much the case everywhere then.

A few years ago, a team of economists at Zillow found that once cities cross a threshold where the typical resident must spend more than a third of their income on housing, homelessness begins to spike rapidly. When incomes don't keep pace with the cost of rent, a cascade effect ripples through the housing market: High-income folks start renting places that middle-income folks used to rent, middle-income people start renting places that low-income folks used to rent, and low-income folks are left scrambling.

"It's sort of a game of musical chairs," Roman says. "And people who have a strike against them — because they have mental illness or a substance abuse disorder or a disability — are the least likely to get the chair."

Homelessness wasn't always this bad. "In the 1970s, there was an adequate supply of affordable units for every low-income household that needed one — and we really didn't have homelessness," says Nan Roman, president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

By the 1980s, homelessness emerged as a chronic issue. There were many factors, including the federal government deciding to slash the budget for affordable housing. By then the California state government had significantly cut taxes and gutted social programs, including for state-funded mental institutions, resulting in thousands of people with mental illnesses and other difficulties struggling to make it on their own.

Yet the core reason for the crisis boils down to supply and demand for housing.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...essness-crisis

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Depends where.

In LA about 1/3 were transplants from other states and in SF it was almost 50%. A lot of these people are runaways or troubled people from other states that are out on the streets within a few years of moving to those areas. You can find the links I posted from the NYTimes and LAtimes in the homeless containment thread.

I’d imagine in Eureka it’s probably almost 100% are locals.

PS in many areas almost 100% of the “homeless” are local citizens.

Those numbers don't work. Either the 9 in 10 claim is wrong or your numbers are wrong.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer

Texas. It only seems fair.

You might note the big Texas cities have much better decreased homelessness than the same in CA.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by EDS_

You might note the big Texas cities have much better decreased homelessness than the same in CA.

*Decreased homelessness *? Texas cities have never had the homeless numbers that CA does. Do you mean some kind of proportionality? Because that really wouldn’t be valid given the difference in numbers or in the economic driving factors. Have Texas cities actually *reduced* their homelessness numbers?

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

*Decreased homelessness *? Texas cities have never had the homeless numbers that CA does. Do you mean some kind of proportionality? Because that really wouldn’t be valid given the difference in numbers or in the economic driving factors. Have Texas cities actually *reduced* their homelessness numbers?

https://www.ijpr.org/poverty-and-hom...ach-california


Anyway on the merits my point, feebly made for sure, still stands......TX big cities have decreased homeless numbers while CA's have increased over the lest several years.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by EDS_

https://www.ijpr.org/poverty-and-hom...ach-california


Anyway on the merits my point, feebly made for sure, still stands......TX big cities have decreased homeless numbers while CA's have increased over the lest several years.

Hi EDS. Thanks for the link . Good to read. But the nut is as I wrote before: the difference in the economics of the two state situations is not comparable. And that is admitted and addressed somewhat in the article. Cost to provide housing is not comparable.

That said, Texas efforts are far more commendable than California’s.

Homelessness is a collateral function of success and growth in highly desired regions. The more desirable and economically successful, the higher the rate of squeezing marginalized populations out of housing.

[BigfishTim]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Homelessness is a collateral function of success and growth in highly desired regions. The more desirable and economically successful, the higher the rate of squeezing marginalized populations out of housing.

I think you're avoiding the elephant in the room.

The major causes of homelessness is due to drug addiction & mental illness.

Identity the "root cause" then solve the problem, that's how medicine works. Unfortunately it's not "political correct" for the City to address the problem.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by BigfishTim

I think you're avoiding the elephant in the room.

The major causes of homelessness is due to drug addiction & mental illness.

Identity the "root cause" then solve the problem, that's how medicine works. Unfortunately it's not "political correct" for the City to address the problem.

Hmmm. Except drug addiction and mental illness are not the major causes of homelessness, as every credible research, study, and both private and public agencies and foundations dealing with the problem agree.

If you care to educate yourself on the topic, browse through the many Google links at your fingertips.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Hi EDS. Thanks for the link . Good to read. But the nut is as I wrote before: the difference in the economics of the two state situations is not comparable. And that is admitted and addressed somewhat in the article. Cost to provide housing is not comparable.

That said, Texas efforts are far more commendable than California’s.

Homelessness is a collateral function of success and growth in highly desired regions. The more desirable and economically successful, the higher the rate of squeezing marginalized populations out of housing.

To be clear I'm not running you down I think your point has merit but there is more to it.

If visceral desirability was at the crotch of all this Vancouver Canada, Tokyo, Sydney and some others would suffer exceptional homelessness and or not be able to deal with it. Athens and Warsaw, neither particularly desirable in my book both have legions of homeless.


It's in the weeds but CA struggles doing anything about homelessness in great part because your big cities follow HUD guidelines. FWIIW Houston does as well but Austin and SA do not.


DFW has grown from well less than 1MM people in the early 1950s to around 7MM now....... that's desirable.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Hmmm. Except drug addiction and mental illness are not the major causes of homelessness, as every credible research, study, and both private and public agencies and foundations dealing with the problem agree.

If you care to educate yourself on the topic, browse through the many Google links at your fingertips.

I'm just not sure where you are coming from here. Among the long term homeless addiction and mental illness rates are exceptionally high.