Is homelessness worse than Chicago or NYC? (San Francisco: buy, live)

[VA All Day]

This is purely anecdotal...years ago I had a conversation with a woman who claimed to be a SF native on a muni bus that said that, for the people that really want help, they can get it in a city like SF. The problem is, there are stipulations with that, including not using while in shelters. According to her, most of the people not sheltered were therefore out there because they're too mentally ill to know better or severely addicted but not bottomed-out.

At the end of the day I feel like there eventually has to be some sort of forced mandate for anything to really change...and since you can't force people to change if they don't want to or aren't ready it will prbly result in some type of authoritarian displacement. The issue is just too big and really a symptom of bigger systemic issues.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TCROX

Yep- creating bullcrap is what tulemutt does- way beyond a hobby; its all it has apparently and has probably never even been to SF... always a phony,self boosting narrative that anyone can see through and never any proof of what it claims to have done etc.
You are right on point Genghis - this has only been a money grab for the liberal elite- who can blame them? They magically get anything they want money-wise with NO accountability at all! All that money GONE and the problems are escalating!!

TC ...welcome to the conversation. Noted right off the bat are your reseach and statistical contributions ... and of course your deeply intellectual erudition and analysis. As always you manage to astound.

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Buy what you want. But, you are increasingly demonstrating a lack of actual knowledge on this topic. No. More and more homeless people [do NOT] “keep pouring in because the weather isn't so bad“ ... one of the more persistent myths.

1. The numbers were down 1% last year but overall trend up 2% over a series of years. In either case, not “pouring in”:

Given the large increase in the money spent on housing them, the fact that the homeless population is roughly constant means that new homeless people are perpetually showing up on the streets in large numbers.

2. The homeless in San Francisco are:
69% from the city / county
21% from neighboring counties and state
10% from out of state
So, again, no, they aren’t coming for the weather ... if they were, Chicago (among many other cities across the country) wouldn’t have any homeless ... all 1/2 million homeless nationally would be here already.

Sorry, I don't believe these statistics. There's no way that over 2/3 of the people on the street are from the city itself, if only because people from outlying areas would end out gravitating towards the urban centers. And I am sure many have moved from colder and more conservative areas, despite what some "official" statistics might say.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

As for the districts of concentration: Yes it is true that they are more concentrated in downtown and some of the more popular tourist areas. But these are also the areas which have the highest concentration of residents and workers. And even in the farther-flung areas like the Marina I have seen plenty of homeless people. I remember watching one of them going from car to car on Marina Blvd, checking to see which doors were unlocked. And anywhere there is a park (and there are many), there are tons of them. There could easily be hundreds in Golden Gate Park alone.

Btw: I lived in the Marina District for years until recent move to San Diego. As far back as the mid-1960’s I lived in the Haight. Also lived in the Presidio, around the Bay on Treasure Island, Sausalito, Alameda and out in the Delta. Yes, I know the Bay Area and homeless districts.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

Given the large increase in the money spent on housing them, the fact that the homeless population is roughly constant means that new homeless people are perpetually showing up on the streets in large numbers.


Sorry, I don't believe these statistics. There's no way that over 2/3 of the people on the street are from the city itself, if only because people from outlying areas would end out gravitating towards the urban centers. And I am sure many have moved from colder and more conservative areas, despite what some "official" statistics might say.

“Believe” what you want. Be “sure” what you want. I just handed you professionally gathered statistics ... not personal beliefs. And if you want to challenge the professionalism, knock yourself out. But if you compare with other homeless counts from cities all around the state and across the nation, as well as studies from various research and academic sources, you’ll find the same story; the homeless populations are not highly mobile. Approximately 90% of all homeless prefer to stay, or are incapable of traveling away from, their resident cities / nearby counties where they became homeless.

[VA All Day]

As far as the homeless being native...depends on demographics as well as the area. Seems like those you see in upper haight or the park (mainly younger white crusties) are much more likely to be from out of town. A surprising number of people still travel the country by hitchhiking or riding the rails.

Conversely, someone could have moved to the bay from elsewhere long ago enough to eventually be considered native to a degree. And I don't doubt there are plenty that come to the city basically for the drug culture, whether they think of themselves as just "living free" or if they're genuinely in a Leaving Las Vegas-type spiral.

Regardless, I'd say SF is a little different from Chicago in this regard, though we get some from other places as well (one of the most prominent examples being white runaways from middle america in the gay areas).

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

“Believe” what you want. Be “sure” what you want. I just handed you professionally gathered statistics ... not personal beliefs. And if you want to challenge the professionalism, knock yourself out. But if you compare with other homeless counts from cities all around the state and across the nation, as well as studies from various research and academic sources, you’ll find the same story; the homeless populations are not highly mobile. Approximately 90% of all homeless prefer to stay, or are incapable of traveling away from, their resident cities / nearby counties where they became homeless.

It's very hard to accumulate statistics on the homeless, due to their transient nature. And these government-run studies may be done by people who have strong beliefs concerning this issue. Sometimes, common sense is valuable in deciding whether or not to unquestioningly believe official data. I'm not challenging their professionalism. It's called "confirmation bias". People tend to make conclusions that they want to be true, especially when it's difficult to find hard data. And it's not just true for you and me, it's also true for those compiling these statistics.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by VA All Day

As far as the homeless being native...depends on demographics as well as the area. Seems like those you see in upper haight or the park (mainly younger white crusties) are much more likely to be from out of town. A surprising number of people still travel the country by hitchhiking or riding the rails.

Conversely, someone could have moved to the bay from elsewhere long ago enough to eventually be considered native to a degree. And I don't doubt there are plenty that come to the city basically for the drug culture, whether they think of themselves as just "living free" or if they're genuinely in a Leaving Las Vegas-type spiral.

Regardless, I'd say SF is a little different from Chicago in this regard, though we get some from other places as well (one of the most prominent examples being white runaways from middle america in the gay areas).

The stats in the Homeless Count link usually identify how many years homeless were locally housed/employed before becoming homeless. Common benchmarks cited (and broken out statistically) are 20 years and 5 years. It varies in reporting from city to city.

But yes, of the 10% from out of state, and some of the 21% from elsewhere in-state, some belong to the sub-category known as “transients / travelers”. This group are often younger. Often quite specifically thieves and drug culture “by choice” trouble-makers. As you noted, people like this have always existed hitch hiking and ‘riding the rails’.

And your last sentence is also noted by studies as pretty much true.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

It's very hard to accumulate statistics on the homeless, due to their transient nature. And these government-run studies may be done by people who have strong beliefs concerning this issue. Sometimes, common sense is valuable in deciding whether or not to unquestioningly believe official data. I'm not challenging their professionalism. It's called "confirmation bias". People tend to make conclusions that they want to be true, especially when it's difficult to find hard data. And it's not just true for you and me, it's also true for those compiling these statistics.

Sometimes, “common sense” would tell a person that many multiple professional data sets from independent venues all arriving independently at very similar conclusions - is an indication that the data sets are pretty damn true ...

... as opposed to, oh say, the “confirmation bias” of anonymous posters opining on internet forums.

Not all studies arriving at these conclusions about homeless mobility are “government run”. Some come from professional polling entities, and from academia. You know, without “agendas”.

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Sometimes, “common sense” would tell a person that many multiple professional data sets from independent venues all arriving independently at very similar conclusions - is an indication that the data sets are pretty damn true ...

... as opposed to, oh say, the “confirmation bias” of anonymous posters opining on internet forums.

Not all studies arriving at these conclusions about homeless mobility are “government run”. Some come from professional polling entities, and from academia. You know, without “agendas”.

I'm only hearing this from you. I'm not in a position to know what the various studies on this subject say. So to believe you on this, would in fact involve me believing an anonymous poster opining on internet forums. I've found that on controversial issues both sides claim the data is on their sides. From my vantage point, it is entirely possible that someone else could quote studies claiming the opposite from what you're saying is true. I will continue to use my common sense when navigating these issues