https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/30/18767847.php
It's like the system is broken and nobody there has the humanity to bother trying to fix it.
Perhaps the $200 million spent on the homeless attracts more homeless people to San Francisco.
It was stated in 2015[1] that there were 6686 homeless people in San Francisco. That seems low, but if it's even in the ballpark that means there is a lot of money spent per capita on the homeless there. It's no wonder there are so many of them.
From [1]:
> The most recent homeless count, conducted in January 2015, found 6,686 homeless people in the city. Seventy-one percent of people reported living in San Francisco when they became homeless, up from 61 percent in 2013. Just 10 percent said they were living outside California when they became homeless, and the remaining 19 percent were living in the state but not in the city.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Franciscans-k...
E.g. a homeless man comes to San Francisco and lives on the streets. He gets temporary assistive housing but is kicked out for criminal activities after a month, and is back on the streets. Do you think that statistic captures him as an outsider homeless, or an insider?
There's a big continuum here, but it's rare for someone to have been living here and paying their bills for a couple years and then become homeless because they're kicked out by an evil landlord or whatever. And even when it happens, San Francisco is pretty dang effective at getting and keeping them off the streets.
That's sort of all besides the point, because the actual homeless people that people get angry at--that homeless woman setting up a tent to block my fire escape, and that homeless man who punched me in the head in broad daylight on Market Street--don't respond differently to interventions regardless of whether they are an insider or an outsider.
i dont belive the numbers either, but since san francisco was a place you came to just get by and have a good time for many decades. there are a lot of people who used to live on couches or had a squalid rent control from the 80s that got gentrified onto the street. or who got out of prison and everything they knew was gone. there are still leftovers kicking around that used to do odd jobs at the shipyard - i think that closed in the 60s.
but i can also guarantee you that the huge rows of busted up beige trailers with cardboard in the windows aren't locals. and they aren't here because they are getting handouts, but because there is a kind of under-economy of trash/scrap handling, prostitution, meth dealing, heroin, and barter on those sidewalks.
So 29% were homeless somewhere else and then decided SF was a better place to live as a homeless person. QED.
Don't you need to know how many people became homeless in ST and moved somewhere else in order to even attempt to draw some form of conclusion?
In general do homeless people continue living in the suburbs or do they move to cities?
What exactly to do you feel was QED'ed here?
It wouldn't surprise me if so many homes were between tenants on any given day, but it would be shocking if so many homes went unoccupied for more than a month at a time.
Census data