7 ms·

The phenomenon you're talking about wouldn't explain much of the problem, given that most homeless people lived here before they were homeless. In the 2017 cens

The phenomenon you're talking about wouldn't explain much of the problem, given that most homeless people lived here before they were homeless. In the 2017 census, 69% of SF homeless were from SF, and 21% were from elsewhere in CA. 10% out of state.

geebee 7y ago
Got a link to the methodology? I'd be interested in knowing what timeframe they use for "lived here". 3 years, 5 years? Also, how long were they housed, and what kind of housing was it (public assistance, private room rental).
sologoub 7y ago
Are these self-reported numbers or from some sort of verifiable source? It’s plausible to consider that people being asked would be reluctant to say they are not from the locality for fear of being told to leave and “go back to where you came from”. While resources are limited, if this cash program is shown to make improvements, then it should be considered to be scaled out to other areas, not contracted for fear of additional migration.
- chrisdhoover 7y ago
  The numbers are suspect. There is a survey where the interviewer asks the question. It is in the interviewer, the interviewed, and the greater homeless industrial complex that the answer is yes I am from San Francisco and I previously had a home. The survey supports bad policy decisions and gives apologists a citation.
floren 7y ago
By your own numbers, 31% of homeless in SF, nearly a third, came from either elsewhere in the state (as OP posits) or another state entirely. That's a pretty big chunk of the problem.
- kelnos 7y ago
  I'm not sure how you solve that particular part of the problem, though. If your city attracts non-local homeless people because your services for homeless people are good, cutting or eliminating those services doesn't solve the problem. It just makes living conditions worse for the people who are already there, and makes it even harder for them to get by. Leaving often isn't an option; if you can barely afford food, how can you afford a bus ticket elsewhere? And even if you could, that's still a risky proposition, striking out for a new city where you have no idea what the homeless scene is like.
- deathanatos 7y ago
  The 21% of "other CA county" is likely heavily tilted towards Bay Area counties. (I really wish the PIT Count would break this out in a future survey.)
- conanbatt 7y ago
  And how many left the city? Way more.
- smadge 7y ago
  Why is that a problem? A big chunk of the housed population came from another state entirely as well.
rb808 7y ago
This surprised me so I checked, the detail is: "Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless. Of those, over half (55%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 or more years. Eight percent (8%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. " So comes to 38% of homeless had previously been living in SF for 10 years. Is Page 22 here: http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Point-in-Time-Count-General-FINAL-6.21.17.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin...
- benatkin 7y ago
  It seems to be a misleading statistic. I think it would probably include someone who moved to SF while homeless, found a home for a few weeks or months, and became homeless again. Additionally, CA is a big state, and a lot those who came to it from elsewhere in CA might have been attracted to SF by its programs, economy, weather, parks, etc. So the view that the vast majority of homeless people living in places where housing is unaffordable are there (instead of a place where housing is cheaper) in order to maintain their social connections is an inaccurate one.
cavisne 7y ago
These stats are nonsense. * it’s self reported * it ignores that people drift in and out of shelters and public housing, they move to SF for that exact reason! Homeless people absolutely come to SF and Seattle from elsewhere, because there are the best drugs, no enforcement, and the biggest community
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- xenocyon 7y ago
  It's strange that statements like your "the best drugs" theory are allowed to stand uncontested when there is a plethora of evidence showing that homelessness is largely caused by housing unaffordability.
  - cavisne 7y ago
    Nothing is affordable when you are addicted to opiates, and have to spend every cent to get them. No one who has been to SF within the last few years would contest that the majority of the homeless there are drug addicts, due to the effective legalization of buying and selling drugs its right in front of your eyes (and under your feet in the form of needles)
    - lenkite 7y ago
      The replies from several homeless and articulate folks on this thread, who are both working and homeless appear to contradict your assertion. Once you are homeless for some time, I assume you will automatically fall to drug-addiction as a means to mentally escape your situation. Especially when the way out looks so hopeless and difficult.
throwawaysea 7y ago
Isn’t this based on self-answered surveys and not hard verifiable information to establish residency? The homeless and activists/nonprofits advocating on their behalf have an incentive to make it look like they’re mostly local.

geebee 7y ago

Got a link to the methodology? I'd be interested in knowing what timeframe they use for "lived here". 3 years, 5 years? Also, how long were they housed, and what kind of housing was it (public assistance, private room rental).

sologoub 7y ago

Are these self-reported numbers or from some sort of verifiable source? It’s plausible to consider that people being asked would be reluctant to say they are not from the locality for fear of being told to leave and “go back to where you came from”. While resources are limited, if this cash program is shown to make improvements, then it should be considered to be scaled out to other areas, not contracted for fear of additional migration.

chrisdhoover 7y ago
The numbers are suspect. There is a survey where the interviewer asks the question. It is in the interviewer, the interviewed, and the greater homeless industrial complex that the answer is yes I am from San Francisco and I previously had a home. The survey supports bad policy decisions and gives apologists a citation.

floren 7y ago

By your own numbers, 31% of homeless in SF, nearly a third, came from either elsewhere in the state (as OP posits) or another state entirely. That's a pretty big chunk of the problem.

kelnos 7y ago
I'm not sure how you solve that particular part of the problem, though. If your city attracts non-local homeless people because your services for homeless people are good, cutting or eliminating those services doesn't solve the problem. It just makes living conditions worse for the people who are already there, and makes it even harder for them to get by. Leaving often isn't an option; if you can barely afford food, how can you afford a bus ticket elsewhere? And even if you could, that's still a risky proposition, striking out for a new city where you have no idea what the homeless scene is like.
deathanatos 7y ago
The 21% of "other CA county" is likely heavily tilted towards Bay Area counties. (I really wish the PIT Count would break this out in a future survey.)
conanbatt 7y ago
And how many left the city? Way more.
smadge 7y ago
Why is that a problem? A big chunk of the housed population came from another state entirely as well.

rb808 7y ago

This surprised me so I checked, the detail is: "Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless. Of those, over half (55%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 or more years. Eight percent (8%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. " So comes to 38% of homeless had previously been living in SF for 10 years. Is Page 22 here: http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Point-in-Time-Count-General-FINAL-6.21.17.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin...

benatkin 7y ago
It seems to be a misleading statistic. I think it would probably include someone who moved to SF while homeless, found a home for a few weeks or months, and became homeless again. Additionally, CA is a big state, and a lot those who came to it from elsewhere in CA might have been attracted to SF by its programs, economy, weather, parks, etc. So the view that the vast majority of homeless people living in places where housing is unaffordable are there (instead of a place where housing is cheaper) in order to maintain their social connections is an inaccurate one.

cavisne 7y ago

These stats are nonsense. * it’s self reported * it ignores that people drift in and out of shelters and public housing, they move to SF for that exact reason! Homeless people absolutely come to SF and Seattle from elsewhere, because there are the best drugs, no enforcement, and the biggest community

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xenocyon 7y ago
It's strange that statements like your "the best drugs" theory are allowed to stand uncontested when there is a plethora of evidence showing that homelessness is largely caused by housing unaffordability.
- cavisne 7y ago
  Nothing is affordable when you are addicted to opiates, and have to spend every cent to get them. No one who has been to SF within the last few years would contest that the majority of the homeless there are drug addicts, due to the effective legalization of buying and selling drugs its right in front of your eyes (and under your feet in the form of needles)
  - lenkite 7y ago
    The replies from several homeless and articulate folks on this thread, who are both working and homeless appear to contradict your assertion. Once you are homeless for some time, I assume you will automatically fall to drug-addiction as a means to mentally escape your situation. Especially when the way out looks so hopeless and difficult.

throwawaysea 7y ago

Isn’t this based on self-answered surveys and not hard verifiable information to establish residency? The homeless and activists/nonprofits advocating on their behalf have an incentive to make it look like they’re mostly local.