4 ms·

The author draws a very unsubtle if not direct line between housing costs and homelessness. Is there any? I was under the impression that most of the homeless a

The author draws a very unsubtle if not direct line between housing costs and homelessness. Is there any? I was under the impression that most of the homeless are mentally ill and/or transplants from other areas. What percent of them just can't afford the rent?

bluejekyll 8y ago
This is a popular myth. https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-homeless-problem-in-san-francisco/ https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-homeless-p... According to that, 71% of people on the streets of SF used to be homed, and aren’t on the streets due to drugs.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Great article, but their bias needs to be seen through.
- rsync 8y ago
  This, and other statistics like it, are really disingenuous and framed for a very specific interpretation. Here is the actual quote from the article (strikethrough is in the original - not sure why - maybe a bad stat ?): "The vast majority of the people who are homeless today used to be housed – in San Francisco. According to the city’s 2015 homeless count, 71 percent of the people on the streets were living in San Francisco when they lost their housing. That means seven out of ten homeless people used to be your neighbors – before the tech boom and the eviction epidemic. " So the presentation here is that average-joe-normal-churchgoer was minding his own business as a lifelong SF resident and was then evicted by an evil landlord, so his apartment could go to a techie, which sent him into a downward spiral to homelessness. I have not done independent research into this myself, but I have a suspicion that the actual narrative is something like: "borderline mentally healthy individual moves to San Francisco because it's interesting and fun and romantic (and warm) and, while still on their meds, manages to rent a room or an SRO or something, lives there for a month or two or six, runs out of either money or meds or familial support (or all three) and suffers their financial/emotional/mental breakdown here, on our streets, far from any support or family they have, if they had any at all." If this suspicion is correct, it doesn't imply we shouldn't be compassionate or helpful or progressive in our responses, but it does suggest that we are importing problems and should consider how we might limit that tendency. It also does not place some kind of moralistic "maybe they shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place" judgement on people - at the end of the day it is indeed a mental health issue. Just maybe it doesn't need to be our mental health problem.
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    yeah, not sure what happened with that link on their site. SF Gov seems to have moved the report. Here's a breakdown by St. Anthony's: https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-count-survey/ https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-cou... (to be clear this is from 2015, so nearing 4 years out of date)
    - rsync 8y ago
      Thank you for posting the actual link - that is helpful. From that link: "Survey results show that 71% of respondents were living in San Francisco when they became homeless, and of those, 49% had been living in San Francisco for 10 years or more." This sheds very little additional information. This statistic is often presented as if 71% of the homeless had their own apartment before they became homeless, but for all I know (and what I suspect) is that many of these people were "housed" in very tenuous, precarious situations that I might, personally, find indistinguishable from homelessness. We really need to know the specific definition of "housed" used in this survey. That 49% of those 71% were physically present in SF for 10 years or more also tells us very little. I am led to believe that homelessness and the mental illness(es) that lead to it are cycles and that people fall in and out of ... the statistic, however, is presented as if individuals were happily housed in a plain old apartment for 10+ years before lightning struck and they were suddenly strung out on the street...
      - shalmanese 8y ago
        Seriously, get off the internet and go volunteer at St Anthony's for an hour. You'll get to meet some representative sample of the homeless in San Francisco and gain a much more high resolution picture on what all the various causes of homelessness are. The picture is complicated but it's not at all what you're positing. I guarantee if you spend a week working with the homeless in San Francisco, you'll meet at least some people more intelligent than you, people who at one point earned more money than you, people who are more mentally composed and happy than you. You won't meet all of them in the same person but you'll meet at least one example of someone who can disprove every single simplistic pet theory about homelessness ever proposed.
- masonic 8y ago
  According to that, 71% of people on the streets of SF used to be homed The data does not say that. It says that survey responses claim they used to be homed there; there was no verification done whatsoever. Of course vagrants are going to claim they belong there.
thrav 8y ago
I had a coworker ask me if there’s any chance that losing everything you’ve ever held dear and being forced to live in such a scary environment might lead to some of what we perceive as mental illness. I think he’s onto something. The effects of trauma are lasting and real and I’d imagine there’s a healthy amount of trauma being created in homeless encampments. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201308/homelessness-trauma-0 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma...
- chess93 8y ago
  Its not really "what we perceive as mental illness", it's just a mental illness. It doesn't have to have an innate biological component to be a mental illness.
wonderwonder 8y ago
40% of American's cannot afford a $400 emergency. For those without a family / friend support system something as simple as a car accident, hospital stay or losing their job could quickly lead to living on the street. I think the vulnerability of low income people is very underestimated for those who don't have a safety structure such as family etc.
Symmetry 8y ago
There are many sorts of homeless people. Many wouldn't be able to support themselves no matter how cheap housing is. There are many who wouldn't be homeless if housing was cheaper. This last group is the one typically targeted by laws against sleeping in cars at night. It's hard to give percentages, though.
scottlocklin 8y ago
It happened to some friends of mine, who were normal mid-low tier middle aged tech workers and who actually were born in the area. They made a few bad choices and ended up on the streets in their 40s. One of them killed herself. There seems to be lots of people as you say, but I'm sure if rent was cheap, that would help out a lot. I dunno if you've ever been to the SF Bay Area, but rent is REALLY high. The only reason I stayed as long as I did was I had rent control. The problems listed by this guy are real: the nimbyism of property owners is insane, and the city bureaucracy (pretty much everywhere in the area -Berkeley was particularly lol) is completely bonkers. I'd also point out that civic groups that should help things, like various homeless advocates, generally seem to make things worse. At one point there was an actual $1000+/month subsidy which paid people to remain homeless. You'd lose it if you got housing! I'm pretty sure Newsom got rid of it (to much howling), but it really stuck with me.

bluejekyll 8y ago

This is a popular myth. https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-homeless-problem-in-san-francisco/ https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-homeless-p... According to that, 71% of people on the streets of SF used to be homed, and aren’t on the streets due to drugs.

bluGill 8y ago
Great article, but their bias needs to be seen through.
rsync 8y ago
This, and other statistics like it, are really disingenuous and framed for a very specific interpretation. Here is the actual quote from the article (strikethrough is in the original - not sure why - maybe a bad stat ?): "The vast majority of the people who are homeless today used to be housed – in San Francisco. According to the city’s 2015 homeless count, 71 percent of the people on the streets were living in San Francisco when they lost their housing. That means seven out of ten homeless people used to be your neighbors – before the tech boom and the eviction epidemic. " So the presentation here is that average-joe-normal-churchgoer was minding his own business as a lifelong SF resident and was then evicted by an evil landlord, so his apartment could go to a techie, which sent him into a downward spiral to homelessness. I have not done independent research into this myself, but I have a suspicion that the actual narrative is something like: "borderline mentally healthy individual moves to San Francisco because it's interesting and fun and romantic (and warm) and, while still on their meds, manages to rent a room or an SRO or something, lives there for a month or two or six, runs out of either money or meds or familial support (or all three) and suffers their financial/emotional/mental breakdown here, on our streets, far from any support or family they have, if they had any at all." If this suspicion is correct, it doesn't imply we shouldn't be compassionate or helpful or progressive in our responses, but it does suggest that we are importing problems and should consider how we might limit that tendency. It also does not place some kind of moralistic "maybe they shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place" judgement on people - at the end of the day it is indeed a mental health issue. Just maybe it doesn't need to be our mental health problem.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  yeah, not sure what happened with that link on their site. SF Gov seems to have moved the report. Here's a breakdown by St. Anthony's: https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-count-survey/ https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-cou... (to be clear this is from 2015, so nearing 4 years out of date)
  - rsync 8y ago
    Thank you for posting the actual link - that is helpful. From that link: "Survey results show that 71% of respondents were living in San Francisco when they became homeless, and of those, 49% had been living in San Francisco for 10 years or more." This sheds very little additional information. This statistic is often presented as if 71% of the homeless had their own apartment before they became homeless, but for all I know (and what I suspect) is that many of these people were "housed" in very tenuous, precarious situations that I might, personally, find indistinguishable from homelessness. We really need to know the specific definition of "housed" used in this survey. That 49% of those 71% were physically present in SF for 10 years or more also tells us very little. I am led to believe that homelessness and the mental illness(es) that lead to it are cycles and that people fall in and out of ... the statistic, however, is presented as if individuals were happily housed in a plain old apartment for 10+ years before lightning struck and they were suddenly strung out on the street...
    - shalmanese 8y ago
      Seriously, get off the internet and go volunteer at St Anthony's for an hour. You'll get to meet some representative sample of the homeless in San Francisco and gain a much more high resolution picture on what all the various causes of homelessness are. The picture is complicated but it's not at all what you're positing. I guarantee if you spend a week working with the homeless in San Francisco, you'll meet at least some people more intelligent than you, people who at one point earned more money than you, people who are more mentally composed and happy than you. You won't meet all of them in the same person but you'll meet at least one example of someone who can disprove every single simplistic pet theory about homelessness ever proposed.
masonic 8y ago
According to that, 71% of people on the streets of SF used to be homed The data does not say that. It says that survey responses claim they used to be homed there; there was no verification done whatsoever. Of course vagrants are going to claim they belong there.

thrav 8y ago

I had a coworker ask me if there’s any chance that losing everything you’ve ever held dear and being forced to live in such a scary environment might lead to some of what we perceive as mental illness. I think he’s onto something. The effects of trauma are lasting and real and I’d imagine there’s a healthy amount of trauma being created in homeless encampments. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201308/homelessness-trauma-0 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma...

chess93 8y ago
Its not really "what we perceive as mental illness", it's just a mental illness. It doesn't have to have an innate biological component to be a mental illness.

wonderwonder 8y ago

40% of American's cannot afford a $400 emergency. For those without a family / friend support system something as simple as a car accident, hospital stay or losing their job could quickly lead to living on the street. I think the vulnerability of low income people is very underestimated for those who don't have a safety structure such as family etc.

Symmetry 8y ago

There are many sorts of homeless people. Many wouldn't be able to support themselves no matter how cheap housing is. There are many who wouldn't be homeless if housing was cheaper. This last group is the one typically targeted by laws against sleeping in cars at night. It's hard to give percentages, though.

scottlocklin 8y ago

It happened to some friends of mine, who were normal mid-low tier middle aged tech workers and who actually were born in the area. They made a few bad choices and ended up on the streets in their 40s. One of them killed herself. There seems to be lots of people as you say, but I'm sure if rent was cheap, that would help out a lot. I dunno if you've ever been to the SF Bay Area, but rent is REALLY high. The only reason I stayed as long as I did was I had rent control. The problems listed by this guy are real: the nimbyism of property owners is insane, and the city bureaucracy (pretty much everywhere in the area -Berkeley was particularly lol) is completely bonkers. I'd also point out that civic groups that should help things, like various homeless advocates, generally seem to make things worse. At one point there was an actual $1000+/month subsidy which paid people to remain homeless. You'd lose it if you got housing! I'm pretty sure Newsom got rid of it (to much howling), but it really stuck with me.