27 ms·

Interesting article though it curiously deemphasizes what is likely the most significant reason for the differences in outcomes, which is that housing is more c

Interesting article though it curiously deemphasizes what is likely the most significant reason for the differences in outcomes, which is that housing is more cheap and abundant in Houston/Dallas stemming from being easier and cheaper to build. (Yes this is mentioned, but it doesn't end up in the 5 point conclusion list). This passage for example. Houston can only achieve permanent placement if it actually has homes to place people in. SF is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic because it has no where to put people and they're in and out of shelters. (Vancouver has the same issue) > Houston houses people first, then closes encampment sites permanently. San Francisco deploys enforcement first, achieves temporary displacement, and watches areas refill. Houston tracks every person from intake through permanent placement. San Francisco can’t determine if anyone is being permanently housed at all. Beyond better outcomes around creating new affordable housing if Houston and Dallas are also doing a also better job at keeping rents low and maintaining existing affordable housing that will also prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. A recent study in Vancouver found that one of the most significant single causes of homelessness (20%) was people simply running out of money and being evicted. The direct cause of this is high rents. So any city that is building more housing in general, and not demolishing existing affordable rental is going to be doing a better job in this category at reducing homelessness.

potato3732842 1y ago
Exactly. There's a lot less homeless when you aren't constantly lubricating the "miss one paycheck -> living in car -> seriously homelss" slope.
infamouscow 1y ago
Texas cities don't just stumble into better homelessness outcomes because they build more houses—though, yes, their zoning laws are less suffocating than California's bureaucratic strangulations, letting developers churn out homes while keeping rents from spiraling into the stratosphere. The real engine here isn't just policy, it's the stubborn, unapologetic religious underpinnings of Texas. Those churches you see in Austin, from non-denominational barns to Catholic sanctuaries, are the sinew of a community that doesn't bend to the fickle winds of election cycles. The faithful don't wait for a ballot to act—they feed, clothe, and stabilize the downtrodden with a doggedness that shames the state's tepid, vote-chasing programs. Why? Because they answer to a higher power than city hall, and their time horizon isn't the next electoral race. Contrast this with the secular cathedrals of the blue coasts, where government is God and every solution is a press release, not a commitment. SF's "enforcement-first" shuffle—clear an encampment, watch it refill—betrays a system that worships process over results. Texas' edge lies in cheap homes plus a culture that scorns the state's monopoly on virtue. The religious don't just build safety nets, they weave them into the social fabric, outlasting the transient schemes of politicians.
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  There are churches in California.
  - infamouscow 1y ago
    Saying California has churches is like saying a desert has cacti—it's true, but it misses the point. Texas' religious density, from Austin's sprawling non-denominational hubs to its Catholic and Protestant strongholds, isn’t just a headcount of steeples, it's a cultural force that outmuscles the state’s flimsy, election-timed gestures. These communities don't just exist—they act, relentlessly, weaving safety nets that endure beyond the next ballot. California's churches, where they stand, are drowned out by a secular dogma that kneels to bureaucracy over human need. If they were enough, San Francisco wouldn't be playing whack-a-mole with encampments while Houston houses people and moves on.
    - pyuser583 1y ago
      California has more churches - but not more practitioners. San Francisco has four Orthodox Christian cathedrals. Many big cities only have a single Orthodox Church, much less a cathedral. San Francisco also has a many Catholic Churches - most with an ethnic component, not to mention Buddhist and cultural associations. Most of these are due to extreme diversity, not religiosity. Diversity isn’t an absolute good. Having 200 churches, each with 50 members, does not make you more religious than a city with two megachurches, each with 20,000 members.
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        Nor does going to a megachurch to hear a rock band play Christian rock while your pastor tells you how great Trump is make you more religious than going to a more pious orthodox smaller church.
    - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
      > These communities don't just exist—they act This smells like ChatGPT.
tiahura 1y ago
Texas is not a druggie safe space. California is.
dimal 1y ago
I lived in Oakland and Berkeley for about eight years and left a few years ago. As someone originally from New York, I’m baffled at this idea that there’s no place left to build in the Bay Area. The East Bay still has large swaths of land with nothing on it. SF has plenty of options for building upward. There’s open land to the south. The political gridlock in Bay Area politics is the problem. I’ve never seen more dysfunctional government in my life.
- Tiktaalik 1y ago
  Ultimately the government is the people. The problem is that the established wealthy single family owning class want to retain the status quo they bought into, and reject any and all political change. Cynical politicians leverage this to get elected and serve those interests by rejecting any change.
grafmax 1y ago
> A recent study in Vancouver found that one of the most significant single causes of homelessness (20%) was people simply running out of money and being evicted. The direct cause of this is high rents. So any city that is building more housing in general, and not demolishing existing affordable rental is going to be doing a better job in this category at reducing homelessness. Affordability isn’t simply a function of supply in a market but the wealth distribution of market participants. When wealth is concentrated, housing ownership is concentrated in the hands of rentier capital, which is precisely what determines the amount of financial outflows from the poor to the wealthy in the form of housing prices (rent and mortgages).

potato3732842 1y ago

Exactly. There's a lot less homeless when you aren't constantly lubricating the "miss one paycheck -> living in car -> seriously homelss" slope.

infamouscow 1y ago

Texas cities don't just stumble into better homelessness outcomes because they build more houses—though, yes, their zoning laws are less suffocating than California's bureaucratic strangulations, letting developers churn out homes while keeping rents from spiraling into the stratosphere. The real engine here isn't just policy, it's the stubborn, unapologetic religious underpinnings of Texas. Those churches you see in Austin, from non-denominational barns to Catholic sanctuaries, are the sinew of a community that doesn't bend to the fickle winds of election cycles. The faithful don't wait for a ballot to act—they feed, clothe, and stabilize the downtrodden with a doggedness that shames the state's tepid, vote-chasing programs. Why? Because they answer to a higher power than city hall, and their time horizon isn't the next electoral race. Contrast this with the secular cathedrals of the blue coasts, where government is God and every solution is a press release, not a commitment. SF's "enforcement-first" shuffle—clear an encampment, watch it refill—betrays a system that worships process over results. Texas' edge lies in cheap homes plus a culture that scorns the state's monopoly on virtue. The religious don't just build safety nets, they weave them into the social fabric, outlasting the transient schemes of politicians.

DangitBobby 1y ago
There are churches in California.
- infamouscow 1y ago
  Saying California has churches is like saying a desert has cacti—it's true, but it misses the point. Texas' religious density, from Austin's sprawling non-denominational hubs to its Catholic and Protestant strongholds, isn’t just a headcount of steeples, it's a cultural force that outmuscles the state’s flimsy, election-timed gestures. These communities don't just exist—they act, relentlessly, weaving safety nets that endure beyond the next ballot. California's churches, where they stand, are drowned out by a secular dogma that kneels to bureaucracy over human need. If they were enough, San Francisco wouldn't be playing whack-a-mole with encampments while Houston houses people and moves on.
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    California has more churches - but not more practitioners. San Francisco has four Orthodox Christian cathedrals. Many big cities only have a single Orthodox Church, much less a cathedral. San Francisco also has a many Catholic Churches - most with an ethnic component, not to mention Buddhist and cultural associations. Most of these are due to extreme diversity, not religiosity. Diversity isn’t an absolute good. Having 200 churches, each with 50 members, does not make you more religious than a city with two megachurches, each with 20,000 members.
    - FireBeyond 1y ago
      Nor does going to a megachurch to hear a rock band play Christian rock while your pastor tells you how great Trump is make you more religious than going to a more pious orthodox smaller church.
  - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
    > These communities don't just exist—they act This smells like ChatGPT.

tiahura 1y ago

Texas is not a druggie safe space. California is.

dimal 1y ago

I lived in Oakland and Berkeley for about eight years and left a few years ago. As someone originally from New York, I’m baffled at this idea that there’s no place left to build in the Bay Area. The East Bay still has large swaths of land with nothing on it. SF has plenty of options for building upward. There’s open land to the south. The political gridlock in Bay Area politics is the problem. I’ve never seen more dysfunctional government in my life.

Tiktaalik 1y ago
Ultimately the government is the people. The problem is that the established wealthy single family owning class want to retain the status quo they bought into, and reject any and all political change. Cynical politicians leverage this to get elected and serve those interests by rejecting any change.

grafmax 1y ago

> A recent study in Vancouver found that one of the most significant single causes of homelessness (20%) was people simply running out of money and being evicted. The direct cause of this is high rents. So any city that is building more housing in general, and not demolishing existing affordable rental is going to be doing a better job in this category at reducing homelessness. Affordability isn’t simply a function of supply in a market but the wealth distribution of market participants. When wealth is concentrated, housing ownership is concentrated in the hands of rentier capital, which is precisely what determines the amount of financial outflows from the poor to the wealthy in the form of housing prices (rent and mortgages).