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.
According to a report from the Seattle Times, most homeless are locals down on their luck, not transplants. The study said around 86% were local and another 6% were from elsewhere in the state - only around 8% were from out of state or illegal aliens. If these stats are anywhere close to those in CA, the great majority of the homeless are from the blue state of CA or illegals.
Although San Francisco is cold at night in winter and often the summer too because of the fog. ,that's not an issue in LA. It rains constantly in Seattle though. If I was homeless and I was going to pi k a state to live in, it sure wouldn't be Seattle.
Send those homeless back to their hometowns in red states. This is really their problem.
.
I doubt many of them come from what you call "red states" anymore.
I hardly know of anyone who's moved out there in the last 20-30 years. I do know a TON of people who have moved back this way from California.
One thing I'd like to point out here is that liberal Californians with all their compassion aren't exactly hesitant to pay the premium prices for their own homes.
That half a million+ people pay for a mundane suburban rancher out there would buy a whole block of nicer houses in many other parts of the country.
If they'd just dial back their enthusiasm for overpriced housing, perhaps a few more people could afford to get off the streets.
It is NOT "10 years" it is "10 years or less" - meaning if a person lives in SF for 1 year and 1 day, that person falls under the "10 year or less" category.
I can't back up anything because no one has explained how they got this data. I came across many homeless in my daily routine, about 2 out of 5 are high, spaced out, not mentally there, or passed out; I can't figure out how the study managed to get coherent answers out of them. And I can't figure out how they gathered the data without going to where many homeless live.
Maybe you can explain to me.
.
HUD requires annual Point in Time head counts of every municipality receiving federal funds to shelter homeless people. The count is executed by volunteers throughout the US during the last 10 days in January.
These counts have no reasonable way of estimating those who are homeless and temporarily sheltering in cars, couch surfing and shelters not intended for human occupation.
Fix the problem by making housing more affordable and paying a decent wage. Even if the minimum wage is raised to $15, some people still won't be able to afford even a studio apartment plus utilities, car payment, insurance, etc.
I doubt many of them come from what you call "red states" anymore.
I hardly know of anyone who's moved out there in the last 20-30 years. I do know a TON of people who have moved back this way from California.
One thing I'd like to point out here is that liberal Californians with all their compassion aren't exactly hesitant to pay the premium prices for their own homes.
That half a million+ people pay for a mundane suburban rancher out there would buy a whole block of nicer houses in many other parts of the country.
If they'd just dial back their enthusiasm for overpriced housing, perhaps a few more people could afford to get off the streets.
The premium prices is called supply and demand. It's why one share of Amazon stock is $1,700+ and one share of Sea Drill is $2 bucks and change. You can't just "dial back" a market economy - it doesn't work that way. It'd be like saying, "Everyone could afford a share of Amazon if all the investors just dial back." It's a rubbish argument.
It doesn't make that many people migrating from red states to create a homeless problem in SF. There are about 6,000+ homeless (less than 1% of the population) in SF. If half of them comes from red states - that means each year if just two down-on-luck persons from each county decide to move to SF, it'd be more than sufficient to make SF what it is.
It’s not like there are huge numbers of properties sitting vacant in California because nobody can afford them.
The vast majority of residences are occupied. So, until the production of housing outstrips population growth, or if the population significantly shrinks, I don’t see how giving away free and subsidized housing will make one bit of difference.
this isn't a people problem it's a money problem. Cali needs to raise their state and local taxes by 20% and take care of these poor people. Why are they so stingy?
What they never mention as part of the preassure that causes high prices and high demand for housing is the number of illegals. Send a million or so of those people who are here illegally, and that would help.
I think its funny. Some posters are all for deporting US citizens from other states that are there legally, but not people who are in the US illegally.
It's not just illegals.
Legal immigrants (like wealthy Chinese) also drive up housing prices, sometimes into the stratosphere.
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.
