There are countless places in the U.S. where housing is affordable, very affordable. Save up for a bus ticket and go to one of them. You don't have to live in San Francisco, and you certainly don't have to commit crimes to live a decent life in this country.
Utterly clueless.
Ah yes, just pack up all your possessions and move to a new city, with no support, no job, and no housing. Not even touching on the mental illness aspect. Just genius stuff.
One of the most out of touch posts ever made on this site.
Ah yes, just pack up all your possessions and move to a new city, with no support, no job, and no housing. Not even touching on the mental illness aspect. Just genius stuff.
One of the most out of touch posts ever made on this site.
Many (if not most) of the homeless in Seattle, San Fransisco, Vancouver, etc are people who moved there with no support, no job, and no housing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Many (if not most) of the homeless in Seattle, San Fransisco, Vancouver, etc are people who moved there with no support, no job, and no housing.
I don't know about Seattle, but for both Vancouver and San Francisco, approximately 85% of homeless people were residents of those cities or neighboring cities/counties at the time they became homeless. And something like half of the homeless in San Francisco are longtime residents of the city (10+ years).
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Many (if not most) of the homeless in Seattle, San Fransisco, Vancouver, etc are people who moved there with no support, no job, and no housing.
Many (if not most) of the homeless in Seattle, San Fransisco, Vancouver, etc are people who moved there with no support, no job, and no housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
I don't know about Seattle, but for both Vancouver and San Francisco, approximately 85% of homeless people were residents of those cities or neighboring cities/counties at the time they became homeless. And something like half of the homeless in San Francisco are longtime residents of the city (10+ years).
Well, these claims are in direct conflict. My gut and interaction with disadvantaged people says that homeless don't have the means to move around too much.
Not to mention in regards to cali's suggestion - "hey I just took a bus here from a big city, am of no fixed adress, have no recent employment history or money to look presentable in a job interview. Are you interested in speaking to"......."sir, please leave without a fuss".
There are countless places in the U.S. where housing is affordable, very affordable. Save up for a bus ticket and go to one of them. You don't have to live in San Francisco, and you certainly don't have to commit crimes to live a decent life in this country.
Utterly clueless.
Hey, that was Ralph Klein's idea first. Except he didn't care about affordability for them, he just wanted them out of Alberta.
Quote:
In a 16-month period in 1993-94, the province’s welfare rolls were cut almost in half. One tactic used was to offer recipients a one-way bus ticket to leave Alberta.
This is neat article on the "bussing out" programs on homeless populations in the US and their impact.
While the data doesn't show how many people either become homeless in the city they live in vs one they move to, it does show that many cities offer one-way bus tickets to homeless populations.
It looks like their are generally three outcomes:
- Bus back to a home city where there are support networks and people recover.
- Bus them back home where there is a broken support system which may have been the reason the person left to begin with.
- bus them to anywhere and then say "not my problem anymore" where perhaps there is no support network
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
In the City of Vancouver’s 2019 homeless count, based on those who responded, 16% (156 people) of the homeless reported they were from an area elsewhere in Metro Vancouver, while 31% (299 people) were from another area of BC, and 44% (435 people) from another area of Canada.
… One of the most obvious relevant factors for westward migration is, of course, climate. Vancouver and Victoria are the mildest locations in Canada, year-round — a sharp contrast to the bitterly cold winters of most other areas of the country, including all of the major population centres.
“The weather is better on the West Coast. The highest concentrations of homeless people in North American countries are in the warmer parts, so that’s Vancouver, Victoria, and Southern California,” said Julian Somers, a professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University, in an interview with Daily Hive Urbanized.
He leads the university’s Somers Research Group, which has performed extensive research on homelessness, mental illness, addiction, and crime.
While the weather is nicer in Vancouver, he says, the situation for these individuals is not any better. He says people are often moving to avoid problems locally or seek some place better, but they do not find it.
So for Vancouver, 75 per cent are from elsewhere in the province or country.
Quote:
As of 2019, approximately 70% of the city's homeless had housing in the city before becoming homeless, while the remaining 30% came from outside of San Francisco.[43] This figure is up from 61% in 2013. Of that 70%, 55% had lived in San Francisco for less than 10 years before becoming homeless; 6% had only lived in San Francisco for a year before becoming homeless.[43]
There are countless places in the U.S. where housing is affordable, very affordable. Save up for a bus ticket and go to one of them. You don't have to live in San Francisco, and you certainly don't have to commit crimes to live a decent life in this country.
Utterly clueless.
I think you would be hard pressed to find locations that have both affordable housing and quality job opportunities. We have been in Tulsa almost 10 years and its still a decent example of it, but seeing firsthand how things have changed in the last decade, I'm not sure it will hold out much longer.
Heck I come from a stereotypical small midwestern town where the factory closed up 20 years ago and went to Mexico. They have almost no job opportunities outside of minimum wage stuff and for a while housing was rather cheap because of it. But even their housing prices have almost doubled in the last 3 years.
So regardless of the whole 'is it feasible to uproot my life to find cheaper housing' side of the discussion, I am not sure there are really many places left to go. Even these midsized midwestern cities are quickly losing their price advantage.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
So for Vancouver, 75 per cent are from elsewhere in the province or country.
In San Francisco, 30 per cent became homeless elsewhere.
Okay but that doesn't prove that they moved to either location without homes, jobs, or support lined up. It just means they were born somewhere else and then became homeless in their new location. Even if that were the case, they may have found employment, etc., and then had circumstances change later, especially if there are disabilities involved.
I think people really need to go read the work Michael Shellenberger has done in regards to the crime, drug & homeless problem in San Francisco.
These problems have been dealt with a lot better in other countries / cities, and there is a template on how to do it 'better.'
What San Francisco has done is a disaster.
As soon I read this, I thought "bet this dude is some grifter Azure found on Joe Rogan's podcast," and wouldn't you know it...
Checked the dude's background and he has no formal professional or academic training on any of the topics he's speaking/writing about. So, you know, your standard Joe Rogan guest.
Quote:
In June 2020, Shellenberger published#Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, in which the author argues that climate change is not the existential threat it is portrayed to be in popular media and activism
In 2021, Shellenberger published San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, a criticism of progressive social policies.[56]
A title like that just screams "fair and balanced."
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
So for Vancouver, 75 per cent are from elsewhere in the province or country.
You might want to read the actual data, rather than the Daily Hive's misleading bastardization of the numbers. Here are the actual numbers from the 2019 report:
Place of Residence Prior to Vancouver:
Elsewhere in Metro Vancouver: 16%
Rest of BC: 31%
Rest of Canada: 44%
Outside of Canada: 9%
What do those percentages add up to? 100%, because they only include the 45% of respondents who reported ever living outside Vancouver.
And of course, just because someone lived somewhere else before doesn't mean they were homeless when they moved to Vancouver. Which is why 81% of respondents who gave their last place of residence before becoming homeless listed Vancouver (and a significant portion of the other 19% likely would have been from within the general region).
Quote:
In San Francisco, 30 per cent became homeless elsewhere.
"Elsewhere" includes counties that directly border San Francisco. San Francisco county is tiny (South San Francisco isn't even part of it); if you include bordering counties that are accessible by public transportation (San Mateo, Alameda, and Marin), 85% of San Francisco's homeless became homeless while living in the area.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
I think you would be hard pressed to find locations that have both affordable housing and quality job opportunities. We have been in Tulsa almost 10 years and its still a decent example of it, but seeing firsthand how things have changed in the last decade, I'm not sure it will hold out much longer.
Heck I come from a stereotypical small midwestern town where the factory closed up 20 years ago and went to Mexico. They have almost no job opportunities outside of minimum wage stuff and for a while housing was rather cheap because of it. But even their housing prices have almost doubled in the last 3 years.
So regardless of the whole 'is it feasible to uproot my life to find cheaper housing' side of the discussion, I am not sure there are really many places left to go. Even these midsized midwestern cities are quickly losing their price advantage.
And not to fall into stereotypes, but a lot of the more affordable cities in the Midwest probably aren't the most hospitable places for people living on the margins of society. Gay and transgender youth for instance are significantly (like 3-6x) more likely to be homeless than the rest of their age cohort.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Checked the dude's background and he has no formal professional or academic training on any of the topics he's speaking/writing about. So, you know, your standard Joe Rogan guest.
Here's a good example of someone who actually is an expert on a topic reviewing Schellenberger's work:
Quote:
Unfortunately, the book is deeply and fatally flawed. At the simplest level, it is a polemic based on a strawman argument: To Shellenberger, scientists, “educated elite,” “activist journalists,” and high-profile environmental activists believe incorrectly that the end of the world is coming and yet refuse to support the only solutions that he thinks will work – nuclear energy and uninhibited economic growth.
But even if the author properly understood the complexity and nature of global challenges, which he does not, and got the science right, which he did not, a fatal flaw in his argument is the traditional Cornucopian oversimplification of his solutions – reliance on economic growth and silver-bullet technology. As the great American journalist and humorist H. L. Mencken said, “there is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” Mencken also warned against those who know precisely what is right and what is wrong, a warning especially worth hearing in the highly complex and uncertain worlds of global climate, pandemics, and environmental change.
You can't just ignore that there is really no room to add housing in a coastal city like San Francisco. Even 100k earners are priced out of housing there and you can see plenty of well dressed people living in late model cars all over the place. I'm not really sure what solutions are out there when there isn't enough space to house everyone who wants to live there.
And not to fall into stereotypes, but a lot of the more affordable cities in the Midwest probably aren't the most hospitable places for people living on the margins of society. Gay and transgender youth for instance are significantly (like 3-6x) more likely to be homeless than the rest of their age cohort.
The "tough on crime" approach also doesn't help you move cities, especially to the Midwest, as something like a possession conviction probably wouldn't disqualify you for similar employment opportunities in San Francisco/California vs. Missouri.
