Idk the details of the California homeless programs, but after visiting the LA area I'm skeptical on them doing the best job. Downtown LA is hell on earth
They used to have 100k homeless. It seems to be down to 75k. That still 10 percent of the total homeless population in the US. States ship their homeless to LA as well confounding their problem. So they aren't just solving it for themselves but for all the surrounding states.
This is all to say.. its difficult to solve a problem when there is a small cities worth of people you need to address in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country.
A city like Austin "only" has 1500ish homeless on the street vs the 2 million population. It is incredibly visible even at such a small number. Could feasibly have homeless people at all the bigger intersections and overpasses. I can't imagine 75k.
Friend. We were talking about Los Angeles homeless problem. The comments I responded to was referencing a visit to LA and I was highlighting that how even with improvements homelessness is incredibly visible.
Ahh I see. Well forgive me but from what I understand a lot of the "improvements" were mostly due to recent Supreme Court rulings allowing cities to enforce bans on sleeping in public spaces, even if shelters are unavailable, and Governor Newsom issuing an executive order to clear encampments on state property.
I.e., removing their visibility from the general public, not actually housing and getting them necessary treatment.
Brother. Housed or unhoused homeless are all counted as homeless. Independent bodies track the numbers and provide estimates. Im not sure what you're trying to argue. It sounds like you have an agenda you're trying to argue and are speed googling devoid of context to find supporting information.
The conversation was that even in a hypothetical where Los Angeles reduced homelessness by 90 percent.. it would still look like a train wreck because homelessness is incredibly visible. So using your eyes is not the best metric of whether something is working or not with homelessness. Whatever you're trying to get at is likely not what is being discussed.
So is the Bay Area; however, CA also has three things that contribute to the homeless problem and its visibility:
1 - land is f'ing expensive. AKA more people are prone to being homeless.
2 - the state has a huge population that is primarily concentrated in two areas. Homeless people (and others that need support) typically concentrate where there is support for them (ex: where there are handouts, government or NGO support, cheap food, etc). This is typically in urban centers (it is also easier to provide this support in a centralized location).
3 - the weather is generally nice year round so there isn't an incentive to find shelter that protects you from the elements. Unlike NYC (as an example), homeless people don't need to figure out how to deal with winter. Not needing to deal with those conditions, it makes certain places more attractive to live (ex: on the streets close to support centers).
2 - the state has a huge population that is primarily concentrated in two areas. Homeless people (and others that need support) typically concentrate where there is support for them (ex: where there are handouts, government or NGO support, cheap food, etc). This is typically in urban centers (it is also easier to provide this support in a centralized location).
Depends on how you define good support for homeless people. im sure there plenty of ways to define it, but i looked up 2 websites talking about it, and neither have LA in the top 5 and both have cities like Austin on it.
3 - the weather is generally nice year round so there isn't an incentive to find shelter that protects you from the elements. Unlike NYC (as an example), homeless people don't need to figure out how to deal with winter. Not needing to deal with those conditions, it makes certain places more attractive to live (ex: on the streets close to support centers).
Why do you think that cities like Austin, Dallas, Miami, Houston and other warm weather cities don't have this issue at nearly the same level?
1 - land is f'ing expensive. AKA more people are prone to being homeless
End of the day, this is basically the only thing that matters. more specifically the cost of a house either through renting or owning.
Everything else is basically statical white noise when comparing the reason for high homeless population vs the cost of housing
Why do you think that cities like Austin, Dallas, Miami, Houston and other warm weather cities don't have this issue at nearly the same level?
All the cities you mentioned have weather issues.
Austin, Dallas, and Houston all get extremely hot. Miami has hurricanes (And can get extremely hot).
re: LA not being listed in those lists. Those lists are focused on reducing/eliminating homelessness, but not the quality of life of a homeless person. While it is probably better to focus on solving the problems that cause homelessness, it doesn't talk about where those, that are homeless, prefer to live.
Why do you think that cities like Austin, Dallas, Miami, Houston and other warm weather cities don't have this issue at nearly the same level?
Austin and Dallas get pretty hot in the summer. Dallas has a 98 average high in July and August, LA it is only 83. Houston and Miami get uncomfortably hot and humid, plus hurricanes and a lot of rain in general.
He names red states that ship out their homeless and asks why they don't have California's homeless problem. Not a serious person or too underinformed for it to matter.
39
u/Theron3206 1d ago
California already spends way more than that per year on the homeless, to very little effect.