This makes sense but is also surprising, I think most people think of the "chronically homeless" when they hear "homeless".
The loss of SROs is a huge hit that we never really compensated for, and something like that should be brought back or encouraged, even if not in the same form.
It really is worth a watch.
One of the things he breaks down is that there are really three homeless populations:
About 75% of people are "Temporarily Homeless", about 10% of people are "Episodically Homeless", and about 15% of people are "Chronically Homeless".
That last group consumes 60%+ of community resources in addition to costing taxpayers money in the form of consuming police and EMT resources.
Focusing on the chronically homeless is the highest leverage way to spend money. And the housing first model has shown amazing success.
Right, because the people who are most suffering from and also causing social ills are the chronically homeless. Being homeless for a short period of time is still very bad for the person, but I don't think it causes the same level of degradation that long-term homelessness does. And most of the "problematic homeless", the ones involved in drug dealing or chop shops or harassing random passersby, are likely the chronically homeless, not people who've been homeless for a few weeks.
Most use a hacksaw I suspect.
Right. It's unclear if that distinction is understood here.
Yes, I understand that the people doing the stealing and the people running the chop shop are usually not the same people.
It's now clear to me that you did not mean that, and rather meant something like "Homeless people that are street thieves."
A few tools, yes, but secluded space no.
https://abc7news.com/chop-shop-bicycle-theft-san-jose-downto...
The ones I'm more familiar with are for taking apart bikes. I imagine that's much easier to do, in terms of tooling and space, than cars (and also less likely to bring down the cops).
> It's now clear to me that you did not mean that, and rather meant something like "Homeless people that are street thieves."
No. Both the stealing and the taking apart of bikes seem linked to the growing homelessness issue we're seeing.
Chop shops are by definition for taking apart motor vehicles.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chop_shop
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chop%20shop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chop_shop
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/chop-...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chop-shop
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/chop...
That's why the title of the article you link to is
"San Jose neighbors describe bicycle 'chop shops,' share concerns about additional criminal behavior"
with 'chop shops' in single quotes.
I'm sorry we can't agree on a common vocabulary. Take care.
Using the term to describe taking apart bikes has also become common. Language evolves. Don't blame me, take it up with *gestures at all of human history*.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/is-chop-shop-operating-plai...
It's true, especially for things like bicycles or small engines.
> Tools are expensive - where do they keep them?
Some of the camps are quite elaborate.
> Are they dissecting cars under bridges?
yes. It's been getting worse around Sacramento for several years now.
> Some of the camps are quite elaborate.
They are. However, tools are expensive thus need to be locked securely. Think: storage unit, not elaborate connected tents.
>> Are they dissecting cars under bridges?
> yes. It's been getting worse around Sacramento for several years now.
Hey, I live in Sacramento too!
I've never seen what you're talking about. Where in Sacramento can I see that?
They're really not. A Dewalt sawzall is a common catalytic converter theft tool. They're not super expensive, and tools are also commonly stolen items. You don't need a storage unit to keep a few tools you use to chop up bikes. (I'm not thinking of a whole vehicle storage yard when I think 'chop shop.')
>> yes. It's been getting worse around Sacramento for several years now.
>Hey, I live in Sacramento too! >I've never seen what you're talking about. Where in Sacramento can I see that?
where can you see homeless camps? they're all over the place. Down Folsom Blvd towards Sac State, the W/X freeway, all over the interchange, right off the 15th St exist into downtown, a few of them along Broadway down towards 99, etc. Those are just ones that I drive by on a regular basis.
It's really bad up along Roseville Rd towards the city dump too. so many RVs and homemade structures.
Up towards the Blue Diamond plant too, and a whole bunch of camps down along and under 160. It's almost unsafe to ride a bicycle across the C st bridge because of all of the camps that are in the parks along the American River. There's also a ton of RVs across 160 from Costco too.
not sure how you have never seen any of this, but it's really quite visible.
What is this based on?
Here's a 20 second video some took on Roseville Rd alone:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/glttob/rosevill...
And that's just one stretch of that road. Feel free to drive down that way if you are ever in the area. it's quite eye opening.
Every claim says it's 'reality'; that's why they need evidence.
The evidence is a Reddit video (!) of one road?
Your replies sound very (and unnecessarily) dismissive. I have nothing to prove. The situation proves itself.
I said years ago (during occupy wallstreet), that I think this class of person isn't homeless, they're friendless. Someone shouldnt be homeless for less than a month, with a job, so long as they have a few friends with a couch.
EDIT: Yeah yeah, edge cases, families etc. The problem scales with the quality of friend groups you have. And in the most extreme I'd expect collaborative groups to step in -- eg: for a family of 4 I'd expect my church to collectively solve this.
Relying on friends and family is poor societies safety net, a rich coubtry counting on that took capitalism one step too far.
Perhaps I think I kinda get the angle you're hammering on though? Are you kind of talking similar to the Walmart +EBT, right? ie No employer should get to pay so little that the tax payer subsidizes the worker's basic needs? For that I sort of agree-- albeit IMO a big part of the issue is rising costs of living, not a lack of pay raises... Pay raises are in the locus of control of a business, but a lack of housing supply caused by NIMBYism is not.
Focusing on the episodically homeless may be a better way to prevent more becoming chronically homeless; they may not have as many of the barriers (deeply seated drug addiction, mental illness, fear of being involuntarily committed) that is more prevalent among the chronic homeless, but I imagine they are more likely to quickly burn through their social network good will than the first category.
If I sell my house, decide to hotel/airbnb/etc for a month or two, then move into a new house, would I be considered homeless for those two months? Or because I can afford some form of shelter, not counted?
Serious answer: this always depends on the context.
>If I sell my house, decide to hotel/airbnb/etc for a month or two, then move into a new house, would I be considered homeless for those two months
Define home? Is a home a house? Is shelter a home?
In some cases people think of homelessness as a lack of adequate shelter, but obviously how you define homelessness matters to how it is constituted.
I assume it's counting people that reach out for help in some way, and not just anyone temporarily without a permanent address.
Huh. So whenever a city pats itself on it's back for how many people it has homed, it's very likely the majority were people who were going to get back on their feet anyway.
Seems like a valid point despite the positive result. At the least, a consistent measure should be used when comparing statistics between cities.
It's a "valid point" as far as you're talking about numbers not people but I don't think you should feel so comfortable only going that far.