3 ms·

I don't really understand how it could be any other way. If you envision a hypothetical city which has too many unhoused persons relative to the city's financi

I don't really understand how it could be any other way. If you envision a hypothetical city which has too many unhoused persons relative to the city's financial ability to support those people - then what? The unhoused just die in the street unable to be moved somewhere that has sufficient resources to support them? I get that there's a lot more nuance to this problem and that the ruling can be abused/used to enforce NIMBYism/jail the unhoused, but, fundamentally, cities have to have the ability to move citizens because the city is aware of its own financial ability to provide support, but the citizens within are allowed to be uninformed.

pseudalopex 2y ago
What cities say they have the resources to support other cities' homeless people?
- SeanAnderson 2y ago
  On some level, the answer is likely none because there's not much in it for them. That said, cities declare themselves as "sanctuary cities" well enough so it's not unreasonable to think this could be extended - although immigrants provide more economic benefits than the unhoused. Still, it doesn't have to be ungrounded in numbers. Take GDP per capita for a city, normalize it by cost of living, and pass a federal law saying cities are only required to support an unhoused population that represents a percentage of the normalized cost burden. Cities already bus unhoused people to other cities to try and shift the burden of responsibility. We could at least orchestrate the process in a way that fairly divides the economic cost. As it stands, it's just whoever acts faster and with fewer morals benefits and relatively poor areas with desirable outdoor weather shoulder the burden.
  - corinroyal 2y ago
    It's a myth that homeless people move to better cities. If we could do that, we wouldn't be homeless. People tend to be homeless near the last place they were housed.
    - SeanAnderson 2y ago
      Oh, really? I didn't know that. I lived in a small town in northern Washington state and there were no unhoused people. I assumed it was due to the cold weather making it not very practical. I then moved to California to a similarly sized city (both 30-40k people) and suddenly there were people on the streets. Just anecdotal evidence though https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1051137717302231#:~:text=Conventional%20wisdom%20among%20local%20officials,major%20draws%20for%20homeless%20individuals.&text=Similarly%2C%20research%20has%20generally%20affirmed,more%20common%20in%20warmer%20areas https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10511.... This suggests similarly? "Indeed, 48% of the unsheltered homeless population is found in California and Florida alone, while just 15% of the United States population lives in these two states. Conventional wisdom among local officials and experts in cities with warm climates is that warm temperatures are major draws for homeless individuals.1 Similarly, research has generally affirmed that homelessness, and particularly the unsheltered type, is more common in warmer areas."
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      No it is not. This is incredibly easy to see by just visiting different cities. Northern cities like chicago and minneapolis have very small homeless populations. Its not because no one in these cities lost their job or because the cities are dealing with homelessness better than west coast cities. The homeless in the these cities leave.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        No. First: the west-coast homeless population is overwhelmingly indigenous, consisting of people who had (and mostly will again) stable housing in the region before experiencing homelessness. Secondly: the much more salient reason the midwest sees less homelessness is that housing is much, much more affordable here. The homeless in the midwest leave homelessness, for apartments; they don't leave the region to be homeless elsewhere. Third: there are huge numbers of homeless people in Chicago. Chicago is drastically bigger than Portland or San Francisco, where the homeless problem is more visible. Drive down Chicago Ave through Humboldt Park. People don't erect tent cities in the middle of San Francisco as a political statement; there just isn't anywhere else to put them. Chicago doesn't have that problem.
foogazi 2y ago
> a hypothetical city which has too many unhoused persons relative to the city's financial ability to support those people The cities do have the resources to support them - they would just rather prioritize everything else
- SeanAnderson 2y ago
  This is like saying that a company, which is going bankrupt and may close, has the resources to keep all their employees employed and are laying people off because they would rather prioritize something else. It can feel true because there's a lot of complexity to the system, but complex systems can still fail given enough structural instability. At some point tough decisions must be made which feel bad to those impacted and weigh heavily on those enforcing the cuts.

pseudalopex 2y ago

What cities say they have the resources to support other cities' homeless people?

SeanAnderson 2y ago
On some level, the answer is likely none because there's not much in it for them. That said, cities declare themselves as "sanctuary cities" well enough so it's not unreasonable to think this could be extended - although immigrants provide more economic benefits than the unhoused. Still, it doesn't have to be ungrounded in numbers. Take GDP per capita for a city, normalize it by cost of living, and pass a federal law saying cities are only required to support an unhoused population that represents a percentage of the normalized cost burden. Cities already bus unhoused people to other cities to try and shift the burden of responsibility. We could at least orchestrate the process in a way that fairly divides the economic cost. As it stands, it's just whoever acts faster and with fewer morals benefits and relatively poor areas with desirable outdoor weather shoulder the burden.
- corinroyal 2y ago
  It's a myth that homeless people move to better cities. If we could do that, we wouldn't be homeless. People tend to be homeless near the last place they were housed.
  - SeanAnderson 2y ago
    Oh, really? I didn't know that. I lived in a small town in northern Washington state and there were no unhoused people. I assumed it was due to the cold weather making it not very practical. I then moved to California to a similarly sized city (both 30-40k people) and suddenly there were people on the streets. Just anecdotal evidence though https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1051137717302231#:~:text=Conventional%20wisdom%20among%20local%20officials,major%20draws%20for%20homeless%20individuals.&text=Similarly%2C%20research%20has%20generally%20affirmed,more%20common%20in%20warmer%20areas https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10511.... This suggests similarly? "Indeed, 48% of the unsheltered homeless population is found in California and Florida alone, while just 15% of the United States population lives in these two states. Conventional wisdom among local officials and experts in cities with warm climates is that warm temperatures are major draws for homeless individuals.1 Similarly, research has generally affirmed that homelessness, and particularly the unsheltered type, is more common in warmer areas."
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    No it is not. This is incredibly easy to see by just visiting different cities. Northern cities like chicago and minneapolis have very small homeless populations. Its not because no one in these cities lost their job or because the cities are dealing with homelessness better than west coast cities. The homeless in the these cities leave.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      No. First: the west-coast homeless population is overwhelmingly indigenous, consisting of people who had (and mostly will again) stable housing in the region before experiencing homelessness. Secondly: the much more salient reason the midwest sees less homelessness is that housing is much, much more affordable here. The homeless in the midwest leave homelessness, for apartments; they don't leave the region to be homeless elsewhere. Third: there are huge numbers of homeless people in Chicago. Chicago is drastically bigger than Portland or San Francisco, where the homeless problem is more visible. Drive down Chicago Ave through Humboldt Park. People don't erect tent cities in the middle of San Francisco as a political statement; there just isn't anywhere else to put them. Chicago doesn't have that problem.

foogazi 2y ago

> a hypothetical city which has too many unhoused persons relative to the city's financial ability to support those people The cities do have the resources to support them - they would just rather prioritize everything else

SeanAnderson 2y ago
This is like saying that a company, which is going bankrupt and may close, has the resources to keep all their employees employed and are laying people off because they would rather prioritize something else. It can feel true because there's a lot of complexity to the system, but complex systems can still fail given enough structural instability. At some point tough decisions must be made which feel bad to those impacted and weigh heavily on those enforcing the cuts.