Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. The State of Washington recently required that any location zoned for a hotel also allow a shelter and transitory housing. Suddently they're not shut out of most places.
If I'm a tourist staying at a hotel, the last thing I want me and my family to have to deal with is having a bunch of homelessness in and around the building next door. Not sure what they think this will accomplish, but I imagine it would put a damper on tourism. The other three items listed do show more promise, at least.
Doom? The South is already full of poor people. The Sun Belt consists mainly of States with the highest levels of poverty. The 15 states (+DC) with the highest poverty are all either below the Mason-Dixon line (MS, LA, KY, AR, WV, AL, OK, TN, SC, TX, NC, DC, GA) or in the Southwest (AZ, NM).
I've seen lots of homeless camps in TX.
Poor and homeless are two different things. Then there's the issue of first-world American poverty v. real poverty. Not saying we don't have real poverty, but much of what we call poverty would not be poverty in many parts of the world.
Anyway, many of the "poorest" states also have the lowest rates of homelessness. Seems like if housing is closer to the price it should be, people have a better shot of having a roof over their head. I know that there's a lot more that goes into it, but it does seem like the more expensive a region is, the more homeless people you have.
From what I've found, it appears that homelessness is a western thing, especially west coast.
Also, parts of the northeast are pretty bad. NY seems to have the worst numbers from what I've found.
Homelessness is not a Sunbelt issue, it's a west coast/out west issue.... along with the northeast.
If I'm a tourist staying at a hotel, the last thing I want me and my family to have to deal with is having a bunch of homelessness in and around the building next door. Not sure what they think this will accomplish, but I imagine it would put a damper on tourism. The other three items listed do show more promise, at least.
The net result should be fewer homeless on the streets. I'd say that's a positive for tourism.
Yes. I don't how so many Californians can be content with mentally ill people pooping on the streets, inject themselves in broad daylight or assaulting tourists.
There are cities I hate to visit now, and without exception, all are due to their aggressive homeless populations that should be in insane asylums or mandatory rehab, not building tent cities in downtown.
Thankfully, it's not a right/left issue and even a lot of progressives are fed up with them:
Southern cities shouldn't develop a reputation for being friendly to homeless. Any help for the homeless should only be limited to the local ones who have lived there for at least one year. Otherwise, homeless from out of town will be drawn in.
The net result should be fewer homeless on the streets. I'd say that's a positive for tourism.
I don't think they've thought this one through. Homeless people will congregate at homeless shelters, as one would expect. But they're not going to be confined to these buildings. They will step outside, and when they do, they'll see the hotel next door, and see all the (relatively) wealthy tourists and business people coming and going. And they'll hit them up for donations, or outright steal from them, or break into their parked cars at night. None of this will be good for tourism.
Poor and homeless are two different things. Then there's the issue of first-world American poverty v. real poverty. Not saying we don't have real poverty, but much of what we call poverty would not be poverty in many parts of the world.
Anyway, many of the "poorest" states also have the lowest rates of homelessness. Seems like if housing is closer to the price it should be, people have a better shot of having a roof over their head. I know that there's a lot more that goes into it, but it does seem like the more expensive a region is, the more homeless people you have.
From what I've found, it appears that homelessness is a western thing, especially west coast.
Also, parts of the northeast are pretty bad. NY seems to have the worst numbers from what I've found.
Homelessness is not a Sunbelt issue, it's a west coast/out west issue.... along with the northeast.
My comment was more addressed to the "doom" statement. Each region has its own issues which don't necessarily "doom" an area, they are just another thing that they have to deal with. Entrenched poverty affects millions more than homelessness, and has not "doomed" the South.
I don't think they've thought this one through. Homeless people will congregate at homeless shelters, as one would expect. But they're not going to be confined to these buildings. They will step outside, and when they do, they'll see the hotel next door, and see all the (relatively) wealthy tourists and business people coming and going. And they'll hit them up for donations, or outright steal from them, or break into their parked cars at night. None of this will be good for tourism.
On a very localized basis, probably. But on average, not at all. A lot of people who currently scrounge for the next meal and don't have access to services will find themselves relaxing in their own rooms. Some can even start to get their lives in order.
I live in an urban mixed-use neighborhood with former-homeless housing interspersed around places like mine. There might be a crazy guy walking by occasionally, but generally they're inside like everybody else. Some really are getting their lives in order, working in service jobs for example. Panhandling is actually pretty rare. In my city, the problems are focused around part-time shelters (who kick the bums out during the day), tents, and a small zone or two where the City seems to ignore drug dealing and shoplifting.
Doom? The South is already full of poor people. The Sun Belt consists mainly of States with the highest levels of poverty. The 15 states (+DC) with the highest poverty are all either below the Mason-Dixon line (MS, LA, KY, AR, WV, AL, OK, TN, SC, TX, NC, DC, GA) or in the Southwest (AZ, NM).
I've seen lots of homeless camps in TX.
Also worth mentioning is the number of homeless listed in varying cities. States you mentioned aren't keeping track or maintaining any kind of census, so how do we know how many there are living in camps in the woods? People are pointing fingers at states like CA and NY but we have no idea of how many there are in states like TX or FL. It could be as many or have a higher ratio, but conveniently we don't know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
