5 ms·

Agreed 100%. I live in California which has the same massive homelessness issues as Seattle. I also travel to Europe frequently and have noticed the same stark

Agreed 100%. I live in California which has the same massive homelessness issues as Seattle. I also travel to Europe frequently and have noticed the same stark contrast where they seem to do much better at this. To try to understand why homelessness feels so much worse an California than in Europe, I did some very basic research (which I also posted on a similar thread once before). The numbers are shocking: San Francisco population: 884,363 (2017/Wikipedia) San Francisco unsheltered population (conservative): 6,600 (7,499 SF self-reported homeless count * 88.2% HUD estimated unsheltered rate) Unsheltered population rate (conservative): ~0.75% of residents (my calculation) - nearly 1 in 100! Compare that with London, a city also experiencing a homelessness epidemic due to explosively rising housing costs: London population: 8,825,000 (2017/Wikipedia) London unsheltered population: 1,137 (homeless.org.uk) Unsheltered rate: ~0.01% of residents (my calculation) Homelessness rates in SF are absurdly high. In fact, there are more unsheltered homeless people in SF than the entire country of England(!): San Francisco unsheltered population: 6,600 (2017) England unsheltered population: 4,751 (2017) They are not equivalent situations obviously, but somehow a country with a population greater than the state of California manages to have fewer homeless people than one relatively tiny city in California. Something is very wrong. Homelessness is a complex issue with lots of intertwined causes and no single solution. Not only is affordable housing an issue, but mental health treatment is an equally important problem. I don't have the answers. But I do know that it is a public health crisis and we are currently completely failing to solve it. We need big changes if we actually care about addressing it and we as a country definitely have the resources to do it.

fosk 8y ago
There is no political will to fix homelessness in San Francisco and it’s actually a big business and money maker for certain people. It’s just a way to funnel tax payers money to those groups. As usual, follow the money.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
You really can't compare. London is a large city. SF is just a tiny part of a larger metro area. Do you know what the 'homeless' rate in 'The City of Foster City' is? Probably near 0. I think a better comparison would be Bay Area to London.
- Turing_Machine 8y ago
  He gave figures for the city of San Francisco and the entire country of England.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    He compared SF to London. Then threw in some national numbers. SF to London is not a good comparison because SF is a small part of the greater city.
    - ageitgey 8y ago
      No matter how you slice the numbers (SF, Oakland, San Jose, all of them combined, etc), the homelessness numbers for the bay area are terrible and way beyond London.
toasterlovin 8y ago
Curious if you've accounted for issues like metro area vs. city limits. It could very well be the case that the London contains more of it's metro area within city limits than San Francisco, thus increasing the divisor vs. the numerator.
- ageitgey 8y ago
  SF has more unsheltered homeless people than the entire country of England according to these numbers. So even if SF's per-capita homeless rate is lower when you include some surrounding SF suburbs, it's still absolutely terrible and far worse than London. And if you consider the whole Bay Area (which is closer to London in size), the homelessness rate remains very bad overall because homelessness is also very severe in Oakland and San Jose. Some of the smaller cities of course fair a lot better than others, but the total numbers of unsheltered homeless is very high across the whole Bay Area region. Even Palo Alto has a high homelessness-per-capita rate when you count people living in vehicles as homeless. It's not nearly as bad as SF, but it's not good either.
kangax 8y ago
I'm wondering why homelessness is not as large in NYC? The prices here are as high as in SF. Is it due to the slower rate of a price increase? Colder weather?
- rezashirazian 8y ago
  Places that get cold usually have less homelessness.
  - cimmanom 8y ago
    Or they just have a less visible homeless problem because more of the homeless are sleeping in shelters instead of on the streets.
    - ageitgey 8y ago
      NYC shelters nearly 95% of it's homeless population. SF only manages to shelter about 11% of it's homeless population (about the worst rate in the country). Thus there are more homeless people on SF's streets despite a much smaller total homeless population than NYC (and NYC is of course also a much more populous city).
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        My recollection: when I took a class on Homelessness and Public Policy through SFSU, the number of homeless in San Francisco was similar to the number in New York in spite of it being a much smaller city. The most current stats I have indicate that California has about 25 percent of the nation's homeless: https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-statistics-on-homelessness.html https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-...?
      - cimmanom 8y ago
        Yes, exactly. The point is that in a warm climate there may not be more homeless people, just more visible homeless people. NYC now shelters most of its homeless mainly because state law requires it. We’re spending a ridiculous amount of money putting homeless people up in hotel rooms because the process to get new shelters built is stalled and we can’t even build enough market-rate housing to account for population growth, let alone affordable housing.

fosk 8y ago

There is no political will to fix homelessness in San Francisco and it’s actually a big business and money maker for certain people. It’s just a way to funnel tax payers money to those groups. As usual, follow the money.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

You really can't compare. London is a large city. SF is just a tiny part of a larger metro area. Do you know what the 'homeless' rate in 'The City of Foster City' is? Probably near 0. I think a better comparison would be Bay Area to London.

Turing_Machine 8y ago
He gave figures for the city of San Francisco and the entire country of England.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  He compared SF to London. Then threw in some national numbers. SF to London is not a good comparison because SF is a small part of the greater city.
  - ageitgey 8y ago
    No matter how you slice the numbers (SF, Oakland, San Jose, all of them combined, etc), the homelessness numbers for the bay area are terrible and way beyond London.

toasterlovin 8y ago

Curious if you've accounted for issues like metro area vs. city limits. It could very well be the case that the London contains more of it's metro area within city limits than San Francisco, thus increasing the divisor vs. the numerator.

ageitgey 8y ago
SF has more unsheltered homeless people than the entire country of England according to these numbers. So even if SF's per-capita homeless rate is lower when you include some surrounding SF suburbs, it's still absolutely terrible and far worse than London. And if you consider the whole Bay Area (which is closer to London in size), the homelessness rate remains very bad overall because homelessness is also very severe in Oakland and San Jose. Some of the smaller cities of course fair a lot better than others, but the total numbers of unsheltered homeless is very high across the whole Bay Area region. Even Palo Alto has a high homelessness-per-capita rate when you count people living in vehicles as homeless. It's not nearly as bad as SF, but it's not good either.

kangax 8y ago

I'm wondering why homelessness is not as large in NYC? The prices here are as high as in SF. Is it due to the slower rate of a price increase? Colder weather?

rezashirazian 8y ago
Places that get cold usually have less homelessness.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  Or they just have a less visible homeless problem because more of the homeless are sleeping in shelters instead of on the streets.
  - ageitgey 8y ago
    NYC shelters nearly 95% of it's homeless population. SF only manages to shelter about 11% of it's homeless population (about the worst rate in the country). Thus there are more homeless people on SF's streets despite a much smaller total homeless population than NYC (and NYC is of course also a much more populous city).
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      My recollection: when I took a class on Homelessness and Public Policy through SFSU, the number of homeless in San Francisco was similar to the number in New York in spite of it being a much smaller city. The most current stats I have indicate that California has about 25 percent of the nation's homeless: https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-statistics-on-homelessness.html https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-...?
    - cimmanom 8y ago
      Yes, exactly. The point is that in a warm climate there may not be more homeless people, just more visible homeless people. NYC now shelters most of its homeless mainly because state law requires it. We’re spending a ridiculous amount of money putting homeless people up in hotel rooms because the process to get new shelters built is stalled and we can’t even build enough market-rate housing to account for population growth, let alone affordable housing.