6 ms·
Why is the assumption here that big cities (East/West Coast or otherwise) want to perpetuate addiction? I think a simpler assumption (that involves fewer infere
by woodruffw 11mo ago
Why is the assumption here that big cities (East/West Coast or otherwise) want to perpetuate addiction? I think a simpler assumption (that involves fewer inferential leaps) is that large, wealthy cities provide more resources for homeless addicts, and so they end up congregating there.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> large, wealthy cities provide more resources for homeless addicts, and so they end up congregating there There was some bussing of homeless into city centres. But I haven't seen evidence that a majority, let alone significant plurality, of these cities' homeless addicts became homeless somewhere else.
- skylurk 11mo agoThere's several programs for bussing them out: https://hsh.sfgov.org/services/the-homelessness-response-system/problem-solving/relocation-assistance-programs/ https://hsh.sfgov.org/services/the-homelessness-response-sys... Although, many cities do this, and everyone leaving is just arriving somewhere else.
- BobaFloutist 11mo agoFor what it's worth, the San Francisco programs supposedly only send them away if they have someone they're going to. "These three programs all help people relocate outside San Francisco to reunite with family or support networks." (Emphasis mine).
- woodruffw 11mo agoGiven that less than half of NYC residents are born in NYC, the null hypothesis would be that the average homeless person is also born outside of the city[1]. (Maybe this demographic skews more towards natives in the case of homeless addicts, but I can’t find a statistic to support that.) [1]: https://popfactfinder.planning.nyc.gov/explorer/cities/New%20York%20City?acsTopics=%2Csoc-placeOfBirth&source=acs-current https://popfactfinder.planning.nyc.gov/explorer/cities/New%2...