5 ms·

Is SF simply the capital of homelessness, the same way New York is the theater capital and Washington is the government capital and LA is the movie capital? He

Is SF simply the capital of homelessness, the same way New York is the theater capital and Washington is the government capital and LA is the movie capital? He says SF has six times as many homeless as Bangkok, but maybe SF is just attracting homeless people from a wide radius because it's a nicer place to be homeless.

SwellJoe 10y ago
Year-round mild weather is a big factor in "homeless capital" status. There are plenty of other factors, though. Cool cities, cities where people in general want to live, have a lot more homeless folks; of the places I've been, homelessness was most common in the "great" cities: Austin, SF, Portland, San Diego, Dallas, NYC. But they have other commonalities: They're expensive to live in, and owning or renting a home in those places is more expensive than a lot of surrounding cities. They have an existing community of homeless folks, and it's easier to live homeless if you're not alone. I know a bunch of street kids and traveling kids, who choose homelessness (or, at least don't try very hard to not be homeless from day to day). There's a list of places they travel among, particularly down the west coast. Seattle, Portland, Eugene, trimming weed in northern California, SF, Venice Beach, Slab City. Sometimes, they go for specific opportunities. Sometimes, they go for easy access to drugs (Eugene is infamous for easy access to psychadelics, and the old home of Ken Kesey and the Pranksters). Sometimes they go because that's where they can jump on and off of trains or where they can hitch a ride to/from. Very small towns are viewed as a really bad idea for homeless folks for the same reasons. It's hard to hitch a ride out when there's only a half dozen people leaving town each day. It's hard to find food, drugs, money, a safe place to sleep, when there aren't a lot of people walking around shopping and such, or other homeless folks to interact with. Police in small towns often feel empowered to be more aggressive with homeless populations, because they're often alone or in small groups, and the local populace is already suspicious of outsiders, so very little pressure to not treat homeless folks terribly. It's dangerous to be homeless in many small towns. So, yeah. There's a lot of reasons for SF to have a big homeless population. Partly it's just that SF has a large population in general (for its size); dense cities have dense and visible homeless populations. It isn't "The Capital" for homeless folks, but it definitely has a larger than average homeless population for a city of its size.
- omegaham 10y ago
  > so very little pressure to not treat homeless folks terribly I'd go even further - the locals put pressure on the police specifically to treat homeless folks terribly. I live in a suburb of Portland. There are a lot of homeless people in the city, and the folks in the suburbs view the police as the only thing keeping their nice towns from being overrun by bums. As a result, the sheriff's platform is aggressive, the mayor's platform is aggressive, and the police chief who is appointed by the mayor is aggressive. Being the suburban Charlie Hales is a very bad idea if you want to stay in office. The next town over is even more aggressive due to being even closer to Portland - bums who get picked up usually spend the police officer's entire shift handcuffed in the back of the squad car. The message is clear. Get the fuck out of our town, go back to Portland where you belong. Or Gresham.
- bdcravens 10y ago
  > Austin, SF, Portland, San Diego, Dallas, NYC. > But they have other commonalities: They're expensive to live in, and owning or renting a home in those places is more expensive than a lot of surrounding cities While Dallas is more expensive than the rural cities and towns not far away, the real estate market in it (median home price around $150k) is a night and day comparison with cities like SF and NYC.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    That's true. There's a big difference between "expensive for Texas" and expensive on the west coast or in NYC. Still, a house or apartment in downtown Dallas (where the homeless folks are living) is nowhere near $150k. I'm not sure what's causation, and what's merely coincidence, when it comes to "expensive places have more homeless people". It may just be that density correlates with both for a variety of reasons. If you don't have transportation and need to eat every day, being in a metropolitan area is pretty much mandatory. Those also happen to be the most expensive to live in.
    - bdcravens 10y ago
      I'm sure that's true of Houston, Indianapolis, Detroit, Tulsa, etc. However, I think there's some unique elements in SF beyond just being an expensive city.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Central Florida has a lot of homeless and near-homeless people. Some of that is mental illness, some people are just "outside dogs" and some of it is veterans.

SwellJoe 10y ago

Year-round mild weather is a big factor in "homeless capital" status. There are plenty of other factors, though. Cool cities, cities where people in general want to live, have a lot more homeless folks; of the places I've been, homelessness was most common in the "great" cities: Austin, SF, Portland, San Diego, Dallas, NYC. But they have other commonalities: They're expensive to live in, and owning or renting a home in those places is more expensive than a lot of surrounding cities. They have an existing community of homeless folks, and it's easier to live homeless if you're not alone. I know a bunch of street kids and traveling kids, who choose homelessness (or, at least don't try very hard to not be homeless from day to day). There's a list of places they travel among, particularly down the west coast. Seattle, Portland, Eugene, trimming weed in northern California, SF, Venice Beach, Slab City. Sometimes, they go for specific opportunities. Sometimes, they go for easy access to drugs (Eugene is infamous for easy access to psychadelics, and the old home of Ken Kesey and the Pranksters). Sometimes they go because that's where they can jump on and off of trains or where they can hitch a ride to/from. Very small towns are viewed as a really bad idea for homeless folks for the same reasons. It's hard to hitch a ride out when there's only a half dozen people leaving town each day. It's hard to find food, drugs, money, a safe place to sleep, when there aren't a lot of people walking around shopping and such, or other homeless folks to interact with. Police in small towns often feel empowered to be more aggressive with homeless populations, because they're often alone or in small groups, and the local populace is already suspicious of outsiders, so very little pressure to not treat homeless folks terribly. It's dangerous to be homeless in many small towns. So, yeah. There's a lot of reasons for SF to have a big homeless population. Partly it's just that SF has a large population in general (for its size); dense cities have dense and visible homeless populations. It isn't "The Capital" for homeless folks, but it definitely has a larger than average homeless population for a city of its size.

omegaham 10y ago
> so very little pressure to not treat homeless folks terribly I'd go even further - the locals put pressure on the police specifically to treat homeless folks terribly. I live in a suburb of Portland. There are a lot of homeless people in the city, and the folks in the suburbs view the police as the only thing keeping their nice towns from being overrun by bums. As a result, the sheriff's platform is aggressive, the mayor's platform is aggressive, and the police chief who is appointed by the mayor is aggressive. Being the suburban Charlie Hales is a very bad idea if you want to stay in office. The next town over is even more aggressive due to being even closer to Portland - bums who get picked up usually spend the police officer's entire shift handcuffed in the back of the squad car. The message is clear. Get the fuck out of our town, go back to Portland where you belong. Or Gresham.
bdcravens 10y ago
> Austin, SF, Portland, San Diego, Dallas, NYC. > But they have other commonalities: They're expensive to live in, and owning or renting a home in those places is more expensive than a lot of surrounding cities While Dallas is more expensive than the rural cities and towns not far away, the real estate market in it (median home price around $150k) is a night and day comparison with cities like SF and NYC.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  That's true. There's a big difference between "expensive for Texas" and expensive on the west coast or in NYC. Still, a house or apartment in downtown Dallas (where the homeless folks are living) is nowhere near $150k. I'm not sure what's causation, and what's merely coincidence, when it comes to "expensive places have more homeless people". It may just be that density correlates with both for a variety of reasons. If you don't have transportation and need to eat every day, being in a metropolitan area is pretty much mandatory. Those also happen to be the most expensive to live in.
  - bdcravens 10y ago
    I'm sure that's true of Houston, Indianapolis, Detroit, Tulsa, etc. However, I think there's some unique elements in SF beyond just being an expensive city.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

Central Florida has a lot of homeless and near-homeless people. Some of that is mental illness, some people are just "outside dogs" and some of it is veterans.