Can't get over how incredibly clean and bum-free Dallas is

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I've been since the pandemic and the cleanliness feels the same as pre-pandemic. The real before/after difference in SF are the number empty storefronts, IMO.

Manhattan went through a brief period where there seemed to be a ton of empty storefronts, but it has mostly recovered already. I didn't go to SF this year, but last year the recovery there seemed to be lagging Manhattan by a lot.

(I'm being specific about Manhattan because Brooklyn seemed to experience almost no COVID related vacancies. Manhattan bore the brunt of the havoc wreaked by COVID.)

I was in San Francisco last weekend. There are still far more empty storefronts than there were in the before times. The main intersection of my old neighborhood was shockingly quiet for a Saturday night.

Originally Posted by czarizard

I looked at the methodologies used in the study, what's the issue? They had 3200 questionnaires and in-depth interviewed 365 people, even with spanish and hand-sign language translators. It seems like a solid study. Where's your proof they're in a bad state of mind, high, mentally ill, or lying? You know you can talk to them like people and they can be honest about their situation?

San Francisco's most recent homeless count revealed that 40% of the homeless there are not from there. We don't have a figure for Los Angeles, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if 40% (or more) of LA's homeless are not from LA. Anyone who had a home in California, even if only for a short period of time, is counted as being "from California."

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by czarizard

Where did I say they would move elsewhere? I said that if you can't afford shelter, you typically can't afford to move either.

Migrants are an exception, in that they had no shelter and no job prospects but were bussed in from the border. Yet they came, in spite of the weather, were housed and didn't freeze to death.

What I said is Chicago is affordable and has a history of supplying and protecting housing for those that need it, because of it's winters. So low homelessness.

I looked at the methodologies used in the study, what's the issue? They had 3200 questionnaires and in-depth interviewed 365 people, even with spanish and hand-sign language translators. It seems like a solid study. Where's your proof they're in a bad state of mind, high, mentally ill, or lying? You know you can talk to them like people and they can be honest about their situation?

Because they didnt verify shit. Someone's word isnt proof of anything.
Let me know when one of these studies actually tries to verify where these people are actually from. All I see is a low effort nonsense, likely trying to get more money or spin a narrative.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by craigs

I was in San Francisco last weekend. There are still far more empty storefronts than there were in the before times. The main intersection of my old neighborhood was shockingly quiet for a Saturday night.


San Francisco's most recent homeless count revealed that 40% of the homeless there are not from there. We don't have a figure for Los Angeles, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if 40% (or more) of LA's homeless are not from LA. Anyone who had a home in California, even if only for a short period of time, is counted as being "from California."

Every news report of a homeless person in LA doing something dumb or committing a crime turned out to be someone from the south or the midwest. Or even Boston.

And the study is dumb anyway. So if a person moves from Missouri with no money saved up, cant find a apartment here and is out on the street in 2 months.
They're from California? GTFOH.

California is getting shit from the national problem because it has nicer weather. Thats all it comes down to. I dont like Trump at all, but lets see if he actually sees this
as the national problem it really is. Doubt, but let's see.
As much as Trump dislikes California, he does know the 2028 are America's Olympics. So I bet he helps in some way with that.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

And for those who dont know, most people in California aren't around a bunch of homeless everywhere like destroycreate likes to pretend.
Most people in CA live in comfortable suburbs that have a few random homeless.
Parts of SF, LA, SD have bigger concentrations, but its not in your face in most places. The narrative is so stupid.

When I lived in Fremont, I was blown away with just how visible the homeless situation was. This was just Fremont. Never mind SF, Oakland or Berkeley. Oakland was downright post apocalyptic but the homeless were in tent cities of various sizes everywhere in the Bay Area apart from hyper bougie areas like Palo Alto or Atherton.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JManc

When I lived in Fremont, I was blown away with just how visible the homeless situation was. This was just Fremont. Never mind SF, Oakland or Berkeley. Oakland was downright post apocalyptic but the homeless were in tent cities of various sizes everywhere in the Bay Area apart from hyper bougie areas like Palo Alto or Atherton.

Sure, but in the suburbs I visit in LA County-
Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, don't have many. Are there some homeless? Sure, but it's not like its crazy visible there. These arent rich areas. I dont see many in the South Bay either. I dont visit the San Gabriel Valley often, but I dont hear much about the homeless there. These are areas of 500k-1 million people.

Ventura County? Maybe some pockets in Oxnard and Ventura? The rest? Eh, I just dont.

Orange County? Eh. Pockets in Anaheim and Santa Ana I suppose but its not that bad either.

Where exactly are these tent cities in these places?

Even in West LA that have encampments are high profile because there aren't many of them and they usually get taken down from residents complanining.
There's only a few that are bad, around the freeways. Venice Beach is cleaned up from 2020.

I guess the Valley has some encampments (its a huge area) but its not like its friggin everywhere. Thats just not true at all.

[Tom In Chicago]

L.A. has third world homeless problems, but even that has seemed to be visibly less of a problem over the last few years. . .

Chicago, while antiseptically clean compared to other large cities, does have a large homeless population. . . I would guess that 95% of them have very heavy drug problems and are getting what they need here while being able to hide under multiple levels of physical infrastructure making it seem less likely seen by your average person on the street. . .

Dallas - I can only surmise - likely has very draconian laws that make it a nuisance to be homeless and probably crack down on the heavy drug pipeline compared to cities in "blue" states like L.A., Chicago or New York. . .

. . .

[iheartthed]

While California cities do have elevated homeless populations, it's not really that much worse than other parts of the country. What sets California apart are the number of people sleeping on the streets. According to the link below, NYC has the largest homeless population of any city, but tent cities aren't a thing here: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

While California cities do have elevated homeless populations, it's not really that much worse than other parts of the country.

Pound for pound, Cali is certainly significantly higher than the midwest, at least going by the numbers in your link.

Winter climate and the cost of housing are almost certainly the two biggest reasons for the divergence.


Homeless population in California cities:

LA - 71,320
San Diego - 10,264
San Jose - 9,903
Oakland - 9,759
Sacramento - 9,281
San Francisco - 7,582
Fresno - 4,493
Long Beach - 3,447
Bakersfield - 1,948



Homeless population in Midwest cities:

Chicago - 6,139
Minneapolis - 3,312
Columbus - 2,337
Kansas City - 1,986
Indianapolis - 1,619
Detroit - 1,482
Omaha - 1,475
Milwaukee - 1,056

(Cleveland, Cincy, and St. Louis are no longer among the 50 largest US cities and thus were not included here, but I'd fully expect their numbers to be in line with their peers)

[mhays]

Homeless counts are typically unscientific, just volunteers and a few organizers counting whoever they can find. Some places have bigger efforts than others. This will skew the results dramatically.

The general magnitude per city might still be true however, more or less.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Homeless counts are typically unscientific, just volunteers and a few organizers counting whoever they can find. Some places have bigger efforts than others. This will skew the results dramatically.

Of course.

But when you see a consistent divergence across the board between two regions, as with the Cali vs. Midwest data I posted, there's a pretty high chance there's something to it.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

L.A. has third world homeless problems, but even that has seemed to be visibly less of a problem over the last few years. . .

Chicago, while antiseptically clean compared to other large cities, does have a large homeless population. . . I would guess that 95% of them have very heavy drug problems and are getting what they need here while being able to hide under multiple levels of physical infrastructure making it seem less likely seen by your average person on the street. . .

Dallas - I can only surmise - likely has very draconian laws that make it a nuisance to be homeless and probably crack down on the heavy drug pipeline compared to cities in "blue" states like L.A., Chicago or New York. . .

. . .

Crack down on the drug problem ? Why does it have far more crime and violence than sf, la and nyc then?
You know thats mostly due to ...drugs. Right?

[ChrisLA]

Cost of living is an issue in LA, but I agree with LA21st most of the people who are on the streets are most likely not from California. One thing I noticed around the valley is there has been a significant amount of cleanup of homeless encampments in the last year.

I have been visiting downtown often the last two months and I’ve also noticed a lot less homeless people. Most of the homeless I see, are usually mentally off, or drug addicts walking around like zombies. There are very few that are just down on their luck types. Also like LA21st mentioned when you go out to the San Gabriel Valley, places like Upland Claremont Rancho Cucamonga Ontario, West Covina etc, including mush of Orange County, you do not typically see homeless people.

As far as Dallas not having homeless hanging out on the streets, believe me they are around. They may not be in the areas destroyecreate hung out, but go to south Dallas. This time of the year it’s not uncommon to see homeless people hanging out hurdle around encampments with trash can fire trying to stay warm. South Dallas is a weird tucked away neighborhood that most people don’t go to, unless they live in a dry park of town and they go there to buy liquor. There is definitely a back water, poor Mississippi vibe, and quite depressing feeling to this area. Being from LA it was a shock to me seeing this the first time. Dallas seems so polished and clean coming in from the airport, but there are hidden pockets unless you have a reason to visit the average person may not ever see it. I recall seeing people fishing in this filthy Canal, I swear it was unreal to see this in the middle of a big city, something I’ve never seen in California.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

Cost of living is an issue in LA, but I agree with LA21st most of the people who are on the streets are most likely not from California. One thing I noticed around the valley is there has been a significant amount of cleanup of homeless encampments in the last year.

I have been visiting downtown often the last two months and I’ve also noticed a lot less homeless people. Most of the homeless I see, are usually mentally off, or drug addicts walking around like zombies. There are very few that are just down on their luck types.

As far as Dallas not having homeless hanging out on the streets, believe me they are around. They may not be in the areas destroyecreate hung out, but go to south Dallas. This time of the year it’s not uncommon to see homeless people hanging out hurdle around encampments with trash can fire trying to stay warm. South Dallas is a weird tucked away neighborhood that most people don’t go to, unless they live in a dry park of town and they go there to buy liquor. There is definitely a back water, poor Mississippi vibe, and quite depressing feeling to this area. Being from LA it was a shock to me seeing this the first time. Dallas seems so polished and clean coming in from the airport, but there are hidden pockets unless you have a reason to visit the average person may not ever see it. I recall seeing people fishing in this filthy Canal, I swear it was unreal to see this in the middle of a big city, something I’ve never seen in California.

Yea, south LA has issues but it still looks like a city neighborhood with pre war areas. Theres commerical streets everywhere that have life to them. Id prefer that over the rural looking south dallas stuff any day of the week. Yea its cleaner. So what? So are down trodden parts of Alabama.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

L.A. has third world homeless problems, but even that has seemed to be visibly less of a problem over the last few years. . .

Chicago, while antiseptically clean compared to other large cities, does have a large homeless population. . . I would guess that 95% of them have very heavy drug problems and are getting what they need here while being able to hide under multiple levels of physical infrastructure making it seem less likely seen by your average person on the street. . .

Dallas - I can only surmise - likely has very draconian laws that make it a nuisance to be homeless and probably crack down on the heavy drug pipeline compared to cities in "blue" states like L.A., Chicago or New York. . .

. . .

But Dallas is a "blue" city. Very blue.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by czarizard

Where did I say they would move elsewhere? I said that if you can't afford shelter, you typically can't afford to move either.

Migrants are an exception, in that they had no shelter and no job prospects but were bussed in from the border. Yet they came, in spite of the weather, were housed and didn't freeze to death.

What I said is Chicago is affordable and has a history of supplying and protecting housing for those that need it, because of it's winters. So low homelessness.

I looked at the methodologies used in the study, what's the issue? They had 3200 questionnaires and in-depth interviewed 365 people, even with spanish and hand-sign language translators. It seems like a solid study. Where's your proof they're in a bad state of mind, high, mentally ill, or lying? You know you can talk to them like people and they can be honest about their situation?

Those types of studies are utter nonsense. They interviewed 365 homeless people in a state of 40 million with 120,000 homeless people. Come on now. Living in downtown LA, interacting and talking to the homeless, watching videos and other interviews, you will see that plenty are not from here and that most are either on drugs, mentally ill or usually a combo of both.

In regards to the OP, im not doubting you at all but those google earth images show areas that seem desolate. You wouldn't find places like that in the LA metro unless you're 75 miles out from Downtown LA.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

You haven't been to Austin. It has been ruined by homeless encampments and associated piles of garbage, needles, tents, etc.. Graffiti is also a huge problem there. You can live in neighborhoods with property values of 1-2M and be only blocks from the mess. The worst was about 5 years ago, but it's still bad. When I left last year, there were still problems with fires under the underpasses. As much as I don't much care for suburban life, my current home of Cypress (Houston suburb) is free of homeless, litter, and graffiti. Cleanest environment I've ever experienced in a fairly large suburb (250,000). There are some areas on the fringes that aren't great, but nowhere near what I experienced in Austin. Austin and Portland used to be incredibly nice, but no more.

Edit: No need to claim Austinites are tolerant of homelessness. They're not. They're angry and people (like me) are glad they left. Businesses and neighborhoods are constantly complaining about the problems near to them. The "leaders" are trying with various approaches, but are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers and haven't been successful.

Austin’s case makes it pretty clear that there’s a strong correlation between housing prices and homelessness (which isn’t really surprising). More affordable Texas cities have less homeless mostly because they’re affordable, not because of anything special Texas is doing about homelessness.

(I guess you could argue that Texas indirectly helps reduce homelessness by accepting to sprawl like crazy, and that argument would be solid enough, but it’s still indirect.)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by lio45

Austin’s case makes it pretty clear that there’s a strong correlation between housing prices and homelessness (which isn’t really surprising). More affordable Texas cities have less homeless mostly because they’re affordable, not because of anything special Texas is doing about homelessness.

(I guess you could argue that Texas indirectly helps reduce homelessness by accepting to sprawl like crazy, and that argument would be solid enough, but it’s still indirect.)

Not really. Houston is far less lenient on encampments and has had a better system of getting the homeless off the street and into shelters. Austin is more liberal than Houston or Dallas (already liberal) thus more tolerant and even accommodating to the visible homelessness population. Where I live, as soon as someone finds a tent in the trails, they call in HPD and they are quickly removed.

[muppet]

There are solutions to homelessness in terms of the 'visuals'. Europe in general has more of a social safety net so distinctly less of it, and this doesn't equate to a rise in people opting for homelessness, insofar as they will move here to be so. The rises and falls are contrary to this, and more inline with the costs of living. People with psychological issues get free treatment and housing anyway, and thankfully there's been much less of an opioid or drugs crisis.

However my home city, London, still has an epic homelessness problem, the worst it's ever been. This is due to how ridiculously expensive property has become, alongside near two decades of Tory rule which allowed council homes to be bought by residents (thus constantly shrinking the pool), plus how fast the city grows each year (and underbuilds in contrast). This means a whopping 1 in 50 Londoners are technically homeless - counts are nearly 4x higher than in 2010.

180,000 people are homeless. However, the vast majority are housed in temporary accommodation by their local councils or stay somewhere for free (eg on a friend's/ family couch) -many have jobs, some even children and families, and those without are clothed well and fed. They don't sleep on the streets, tents or even in homeless hostels. It's largely invisible -even a problem because it's so invisible, with less activism in its name. However it's also largely temporary.

Both myself and my partner have been homeless in our lives, as well as being the opposite at some stage too with high end jobs, such is the turn of coin in the city. Whenever we fell out of work, sometimes for over a year, the govt paid the rent, bills and helped with expenses, but only based on our savings, past tax contributions and for a set period, with weekly interviews to prove we were looking for work. Ensuring we didn't get too cosy, but long enough to get back on our feet each time. As other studies have shown, even buying a new house for a homeless person saves the society more in costs and loss of income (from tax, theft, loss of tourism, footfall and business), should they end up in crime, substance abuse, mental degradation or long term destitution, so this is still cheaper than that.

[muppet]

The people who fall through the cracks are the unhoused, and who sleep rough each night -some people actively avoid housing due to unseen mental health issues, addicts, or being on the run (such as spousal abuse victims, illegal migrants etc). This population is about 5,000 by last count, for a city of 9 million, plus it varies as a significant proportion are only temporary.

However, once again you won't see much of them. Begging is illegal and any who do it (you'll spot some around train termini and outside popular tube stops), are soon hassled on by community support officers, or even charged by the police. Those who keep at it in a constant cat and mouse, are desperate (drug users) or professional fakes, insofar as they are actually housed and earn a pretty penny each day -I recently discovered the fella outside my workplace, who we've known for years, has disappeared due to a community order -he'd been earning hundreds a day and has a house in flipping Chelsea. Some do fake 'announcements' from carriage to carriage on the trains, to avoid the constant copshop, asking for enough to pay for a hostel for the night and a warm drink -they're in it for the money and earn quite the mint, especially given that hostels and meals are actually free. A telltale sign they're addicts or in business.

People with mental health issues are spotted early -treatment and housing takes them in. Also many of the unhoused dress and act as normal as anyone else -when a soup kitchen does pop up, it's quite a wonder that many in line are decently dressed and would otherwise have been invisible. Also excess food from restaurants can freely be given, Chinatown right in the centre's a safe bet -plus clothing from the charity shops on every High street -just walk in and ask. Every supermarket has an aisle or line of trolleys after checkout to donate locally -overflowing each time.



There aren't homeless encampments, though there's one close to it at Marble Arch where the Romanian Roma arrivals land. Once again it's pretty discrete -the tourist site is in the heart of moneyed London and manicured, and the unhoused sleep in a hidden tunnel to one of the high end, underground carparks.

In the past London operated a vast network of beds-in-sheds, in which illegal landlords housed desperate people in outhouses in their gardens, now thankfully demolished after council crackdowns. I've seen occasional tents in Tottenham Court Rd, but only at night and they're gone by day, as it's a busy thoroughfare, a step away from one of the city's busiest restaurant districts.

[muppet]

In short:

1. Low tolerance for begging, and enforcement

2. Provision of free bathrooms where homeless do gather (plus a system of public urinals on the worst streets / nightlife areas, and all major trains termini have well maintained cubicles). Also, pubs on every corner helps.

3. Food and clothing is never an issue, thanks to soup kitchens, activism and general societal support. The fact people are well dressed and clean means businesses have less of an issue sitting them with the rest.

4. Distinct lack of a Class A/ opioids drugs crisis

5. Cold weather 9 months of the damn year helps the unhoused to seek accommodation in the end, freely provided

6. Community support for fresh arrivals of illegal migrants, they don't stay long on the streets before finding jobs -migrants are much less of an issue, they tend to come here for the jobs, not the handouts that will keep them perpetually poor

7. Encampments are tolerated so long as they're very discrete and well kept, and don't grow/ last. Rough sleepers and tents become an open target for endless visits from community and charity workers -if you read between the lines, this means encampments are not actually tolerated.

8. Unused buildings are sealed off and maintained via 'caretaker' schemes, whereby extraordinarily cheap rents are offered to charity workers. This has effectively ended squatting.

9. Streets are spotless, with an army of litter pickers

10. Wide network of women's shelters (often secret), for abuse victims, runaways, prostitutes etc.

11. Govt drug centres dealing out safe drugs, but also rehabilitation

12. Big Issue is on every other street - salespeople are homeless and the magazine they sell goes to them, providing a wage

13. If you look at the lighted street maps at intersections, discretely hidden are free charging portals and internet access for the homeless

14. All libraries offer the same


^These factors help considerably, some accidentally, others planned. Contrast the profile of the unhoused today with the horrors of 1980s Britain at its Thatcherite height, when it actually had less homeless but more desperation and less community -1/8 of city land derelict, begging, litter and destitution commonplace, with 'tent cities' around the busiest termini.


To disseminate it further the crux of the issue is that providing for the homeless will attract more of the homeless, but only if you don't already have a social safety net. With one in place, you won't get the worst excesses manifest itself, even if you do have a massive homelessness issue at large. Neither will you get every small town's lot, from across the country move to the big city to get help -they can get it from their local council's anyway.

Also a lack of a drugs crisis helps immeasurably.