I have lived all over the US, and noticed that only in California do I find young homeless people. They generally seem happy and even have dogs.
I never saw this in NYC or anywhere else on the East Coast or in the Midwest.
Is there a reason why the demographics would be different?
As soon as that first cold spike hits, you feel like death inside.
Logistically that is impossible and makes no sense.
As for why there are so many young people homeless in SF, it's probably because SF is one of the most willing cities trying to solve a national problem by itself. We also have great weather (not too hot in the summer, not too cold in the winter). And probably a lot of generous people walking the streets.
It's really horrible what our national government has allowed to happen in our country and it's impractical for our city to hold the burden to solve this nation's problems.
Its not a poor city that needs national help: it spends 10 billion dollars a year for a shitty bus and a poop patrol.
the state is the canonical unit for a problem like homelessness, and each state is free to delegate to local jurisdictions or to coordinate with other states on solutions.
by the way, san francisco has about 8000 homeless folks, and LA has ~55,000 (~40% of the 130,000 homeless in the state). if we wanted to build new housing for all of these folks, we'd need about $50B (state budget is about $200B/year). LA, for instance, spent $0.6B on homelessness last year, or about 3% of what is needed just in LA.
we either continuously pay for homelessness indirectly (and ineffectively), through police, crime, social services, drugs, non-profits, governmental programs, emergency services, etc. or actually tackle the problem directly by raising and allocating that $50B.
(obviously talking about first-order effects here. this is not an in-depth policy paper.)
Hell, the REAL ID act is technically illegal, but the feds can use the "we won't let you board a flight without one" stick to force compliance.
The federal government gets its paws into whatever it wants to. It simply doesn't care about homeless issues.
I do agree that, on its face, homelessness seems like a textbook local/state problem. However, any city/state that tries to solve the problem with money and services will be a magnet for homeless people from outside the area, which can easily overwhelm the services provided. How do you fix that?
I'd say this is a textbook border-controlling-entity-level problem...
that's such a non-sequitur. so is the gist that we just accept the federal government overstepping its bounds? that's sounds so defeatist. instead, let's put even more pressure on (all of) our representatives to contain the overstepping.
> "...magnet for homeless people from outside the area, which can easily overwhelm the services provided. How do you fix that?"
that's worth keeping in mind, but there's no compelling evidence that that's going to be a problem. an optimist might posit that it's just as likely that micro-economies develop that allow the former homeless to lift others out of homelessness without further intervention. it depends on how things are implemented of course. let's take a step forward and (continually) assess.
This can't be solved without coordination, ie. federal government.
What would you have to see before you might start to think San Francisco's policies might be part of the problem?
A lot of the more permenant homeless population in SF are mentally ill with nowhere to go.
Some (many? most?) of these kids are homeless by choice, it's a subculture as much as circumstance. They flock to the Bay Area (Berkeley/Oakland, and the Haight area) to be a part of the scene.
From an article in Hoodline, quoting Mary Howe, founder of the Homeless Youth Alliance,
> [San Francisco's Haight Street] is an international destination for youth who come seeking refuge from abusive families, alienating foster care and group home situations, and juvenile justice system involvement. These homeless young people encounter constant threats to both their physical and mental health while on the streets.
https://hoodline.com/2015/03/getting-to-know-haight-street-k...
Regardless you’re right it’s not a simple dichotomy. Similar to how if you’re living in a new Airstream, chances are you aren’t the same sort of homeless as someone in a runned down camper with little cash flow or savings.
Last three years though I'm seeing people that are homeless and not scruffy. Friend of a friend was living in a panel truck with her 6 year old daughter for a year.
My solution is fairly simple, force the tech companies to direct their firehose of free cash somewhere else like Detroit or Albuquerque.
There are quite a few people who actively aspire to live in vans on the streets of the bay area. There are more who are on the end of having other options (but don't want to, say, have a connivance store job in a small midwest town) but don't take them for whatever reason. If you had a few resources, wouldn't you rather try to make your way to live in SF instead of NY, especially in January?
Being young makes it more likely that the lifestyle is a choice and when it isn't, being young makes it easier to migrate to the best possible place to be homeless.
Those people still have a roof over their heads. They just don't have a mailing address.
EDIT: I stand corrected. Apparently, San Francisco does count those among the homeless.
> The number of people living in cars and campers grew — a big part of the reason the number of unsheltered people increased, the city said.
I've been thinking about doing a dashcam of 10 miles of El Camino Real to show the extent to people unfamiliar.
I thought it’s anecdotal
Cambridge, Boston, and Massaschusetts are wealthy, and good about social programs and safety nets for the poor, by overall US standards. But the winters get cold, so a lot of homeless who are able might go to the SF Bay Area.
I've lived in the South, New England, Texas, and California. There are homeless people every where. Before you conclude that the demographics are actually different (I'm not disputing it is -- California is different but not as stark as you may think), ensure that your observations aren't biased (I don't mean personal bias but some places put more effort into hiding their homeless population).
There is an episode of Portlandia satirizing young homeless people too, so I'd imagine that is another example.
A "hurr durr" would have sufficed.
And that failed public policy isn't prop 13. It's a policy of expecting cities to deal with their homeless problems.
Neither Seattle or Vancouver have prop 13, and they are dealing with a homelessness crisis. Neither does Hawaii, Vegas, etc.
What they all have in common is a federal government that doesn't give a shit.
Here, there is never a time of year when people have to get off the streets, and we don't have enough beds for them even if they did. The Bay Area is also a huge sprawl, so it isn't clear where we would build such housing to be out of sight and out of mind even if we were going to.
Human beings have a tough time surviving when exposed to the elements, and winter lasts for 6 months in the North East and Midwest. It is difficult to live when you are soaking wet and it is 34 degrees outside.
Hope this helps.
The weather is a big factor in peoples' decisions to move places. It's near the top of the list in any discussion on which city people would prefer to live in on the city-data forums. People who aren't homeless take the air conditioning or heating for granted when comparing the weather in two different cities.