4 ms·

There are many studies, but one I read farther back said about ~50% of SF homeless had lived here more than 10 years and most (70 or 75%) had lived in homes bef

There are many studies, but one I read farther back said about ~50% of SF homeless had lived here more than 10 years and most (70 or 75%) had lived in homes before. Which seems logical thinking about 2007 rent pricing. So yes, there's a significant crowd that will move here for the services/weather/won't get harrassed by PD, but there's also probably a larger crowd of people just hanging on who are getting squeezed out of their apartments over time.

toasterlovin 8y ago
That they lived in homes before does not mean that increased housing costs are why they are now homeless.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, but for a lot of them, you'd be hard pressed to show that they weren't a contributing factor.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    I'm skeptical. Growing up in Los Angeles, I basically never saw Central American immigrants living on the streets. As members of the very lowest rungs of the lower class, these are the people you would expect to see living on the streets if housing costs were the driving force behind homelessness.
    - hindsightbias 8y ago
      Back in the day (before the housing bust) a tour of Mission or Sunset real estate listings would contain "unpermitted structure in back yard" (not basement). They weren't storage sheds, they were housing with a/c units in the window. Bunk beds or cots in them. A lot of their work dried up after the housing bust. It was also one thing to house the non-resident (and non-rent controlled) worker cooking at the neighborhood restaurant or working construction vs what we think of as indigent street homeless. Many of those units are still there, but today's owners are probably less open someone in their back yard. There's also a trait in some cultures of taking care of their own and multiple families living together. My neighbor told me my predecessors were 6-7 FOB Irish youth, bunk beds in the living room. [edit - link below]
    - dahdum 8y ago
      I believe that's because the vast majority of immigrants, Central American and otherwise, are here because they want to build a better life for themselves and their families. They are by large self selected for above average ambition and work ethic, whether they came by visa or illegally.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        Right, but clearly housing costs are not the driving force behind homelessness.
xienze 8y ago
> and most (70 or 75%) had lived in homes before. Which seems logical thinking about 2007 rent pricing. > but there's also probably a larger crowd of people just hanging on who are getting squeezed out of their apartments over time. Careful with how "lived in homes before" is defined. Is that "has ever lived in a home before" or "lived in a home and was forced out by increased rent"? The former is something true for just about any person and doesn't mean much WRT the issue.
- hindsightbias 8y ago
  I can't find the original study, but media reports on it: http://abc7news.com/news/data-shows-sf-has-2nd-highest-homeless-population-in-us/1407123/ http://abc7news.com/news/data-shows-sf-has-2nd-highest-homel... "According to the city's homeless survey, 71 percent were actually living in San Francisco when they lost their homes."

toasterlovin 8y ago

That they lived in homes before does not mean that increased housing costs are why they are now homeless.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, but for a lot of them, you'd be hard pressed to show that they weren't a contributing factor.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  I'm skeptical. Growing up in Los Angeles, I basically never saw Central American immigrants living on the streets. As members of the very lowest rungs of the lower class, these are the people you would expect to see living on the streets if housing costs were the driving force behind homelessness.
  - hindsightbias 8y ago
    Back in the day (before the housing bust) a tour of Mission or Sunset real estate listings would contain "unpermitted structure in back yard" (not basement). They weren't storage sheds, they were housing with a/c units in the window. Bunk beds or cots in them. A lot of their work dried up after the housing bust. It was also one thing to house the non-resident (and non-rent controlled) worker cooking at the neighborhood restaurant or working construction vs what we think of as indigent street homeless. Many of those units are still there, but today's owners are probably less open someone in their back yard. There's also a trait in some cultures of taking care of their own and multiple families living together. My neighbor told me my predecessors were 6-7 FOB Irish youth, bunk beds in the living room. [edit - link below]
  - dahdum 8y ago
    I believe that's because the vast majority of immigrants, Central American and otherwise, are here because they want to build a better life for themselves and their families. They are by large self selected for above average ambition and work ethic, whether they came by visa or illegally.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Right, but clearly housing costs are not the driving force behind homelessness.

xienze 8y ago

> and most (70 or 75%) had lived in homes before. Which seems logical thinking about 2007 rent pricing. > but there's also probably a larger crowd of people just hanging on who are getting squeezed out of their apartments over time. Careful with how "lived in homes before" is defined. Is that "has ever lived in a home before" or "lived in a home and was forced out by increased rent"? The former is something true for just about any person and doesn't mean much WRT the issue.

hindsightbias 8y ago
I can't find the original study, but media reports on it: http://abc7news.com/news/data-shows-sf-has-2nd-highest-homeless-population-in-us/1407123/ http://abc7news.com/news/data-shows-sf-has-2nd-highest-homel... "According to the city's homeless survey, 71 percent were actually living in San Francisco when they lost their homes."