4 ms·

Sounds normal for progressive metropolitan areas in the US. Not actually that common in the US as a whole.

• nkrisc 4y ago
  Correct, because much of the US is sparsely populated, and homeless folks will aggregate where public services are available and accessible. You won’t find a homeless encampment in the middle of Nebraska where there’s nothing around but ranches. It’s not “progressiveness” that attracts homeless encampments, it’s density. Where there are people, there are resources. It’s got nothing to do with politics.
  • BobbyJo 4y ago
    The politics provide the resources though. Compare Portland, Seattle, NY, SF, or LA to any city in Texas or Florida. Even correcting for population, its a fairly significant difference.
    • nkrisc 4y ago
      Non-political resources like a density of restaurants with food available, density of people who will provide help, charities, food banks, community centers, etc. If you look at each state’s share of the total number of people in the US experiencing homelessness, is unsurprising that the states with most are also home to the latest cities. Texas is low per capita, at a state level, but when you look at rates within cities then Texas and Florida and Arizona cities start to pop up. It’s not like conservative local governments have “solved” homelessness. As long as there is homelessness, dense urban areas will always have the largest share of people experiencing homelessness because there are simply more resources, in the general sense, there. Where there are people, there are resources. Let’s not forget climate as well. California, and the West coast, have a pretty favorable climate in general.