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

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Homeless... unhoused... unsheltered

These terms are all so negative -- so insensitive.

How about we start referring to these fellow citizens as "roof-free" or "wall-free"? Let's celebrate their independent spirit so that we can feel better about ourselves!

i prefer hobo.

[mr1138]

Looks like this has already been discussed to death, and I'm glad to see the OP has rephrased the original post to be clear it is not targeted at homeless individuals.

But for what it's worth - I was in Dallas this spring to see the solar eclipse, and one of the big takeaways for me was that there was a LOT of visible homelessness. We stayed downtown, and while there may not have been tent cities, there were definite "bums" on Main street, and a bonafide "screamer" down by the Dallas World Aquarium yelling at the families and kids arriving. I have also observed more than a few people sleeping under the bridges in Oklahoma City.

While it is likely true that these "red state" cities probably have much more draconian policies about sweeping encampments and making homeless individuals "move along," what really struck me about what I saw was that homelessness is CLEARLY not just a "West Coast" problem.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Previously I would've thought because they have so few resources, you'd see far more of it to be honest.

The homeless gravitate to cities which provide them more services. the fewer homeless services you have the fewer homeless you will also have. It's also why you don't see much homeless in the suburbs.

[edale]

Originally Posted by mr1138

While it is likely true that these "red state" cities probably have much more draconian policies about sweeping encampments and making homeless individuals "move along," what really struck me about what I saw was that homelessness is CLEARLY not just a "West Coast" problem.

Had you never left the west coast before? I don't think I've ever heard someone say that homelessness is just a west coast problem. It's more pronounced here, and there's greater tolerance for tents and antisocial behavior in the big west coast cities, but cities across the USA have always had homeless people.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Nite

The homeless gravitate to cities which provide them more services. the fewer homeless services you have the fewer homeless you will also have. It's also why you don't see much homeless in the suburbs.

Exactly. That's why it's a total myth that you can spend your way out of the problem. From a Southern California perspective, you don't have to look to Texas to see this is true. Ever wonder why Beverly Hills, Burbank, and Glendale have very few homeless, but LA is exploding with them? The former cities enforce their laws and make it difficult for the homeless to be public nuissances while LA largely turns a blind eye and lets them do whatever they want. I'm not advocating for totally cutting services for the homeless-- they have to have somewhere to go, and they need resources to be rehabilitated to functioning members of society. But doling out services and resources while expecting nothing in return (like adhering to a basic social contract) and failing to enforce laws is a recipe to become a homeless hotbed. That's the recipe that SF and LA have used so far, and we see how that's working.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by edale

Had you never left the west coast before? I don't think I've ever heard someone say that homelessness is just a west coast problem. It's more pronounced here, and there's greater tolerance for tents and antisocial behavior in the big west coast cities, but cities across the USA have always had homeless people.

I've traveled around plenty, it is by no means the first time I have seen homelessness east of Colorado. But yes - LOTS of people say that homelessness is mostly a west coast problem (or a "blue state" problem). In fact - this suggestion was actually the subtext of the OP.

This claim has been made pretty much ad nauseum about cities like San Francisco, Portland, and Denver since about 2020, which is why I found it ironic to see such obvious visible homelessness in "red state" cities like Dallas and OKC.

[Riverranchdrone]

Originally Posted by Nite

The homeless gravitate to cities which provide them more services. the fewer homeless services you have the fewer homeless you will also have. It's also why you don't see much homeless in the suburbs.

It is not so much that they gravitate there is that the small towns ship them there.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I understand that it's important to look at a study's methodology and data sources to avoid misinterpreting the findings and obviously surveys can have self-reporting problems. But there's no apparent reason why a large portion of respondents would want to hide the fact that they moved from another state since moving between states isn't illegal (or even stigmatized as far as I'm aware). Plus, it wasn't just the survey but also in-depth interviews. That doesn't mean it can't have problems, but I don't see anything serious enough to write off an entire 90+ page, academic, peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology as "complete nonsense." It tends to be fairly easy to identify when a survey has a potential weakness, and a study with that level of rigor can generally identify and adjust for such potential weaknesses quite easily.

Because they didn't actually verify if these answers were true. Anyone can say anything. It's not my fault the people doing the survey just said, "ok, we believe you".
That makes it total nonsense. We know some of those people were likely on drugs and mentally ill. They dont know what friggin day it is. But somehow their word matters for this, because you want it to.

If the people doing the survey have all these resources, they can verfiy some of these answers to see if it was bullshit or not. They did not do that. That's lazy.

Of course theres a reason to lie about being from CA. They probably dont think they'd have access to resources/services if they claimed they were from some other state.
That makes total sense.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Because they didn't actually verify if these answers were true. Anyone can say anything. It's not my fault the people doing the survey just said, "ok, we believe you".
That makes it total nonsense. We know some of those people were likely on drugs and mentally ill. They dont know what friggin day it is. But somehow their word matters for this, because you want it to.

If the people doing the survey have all these resources, they can verfiy some of these answers to see if it was bullshit or not. They did not do that. That's lazy.

Surveys are one of the most widely used methods of gathering information on social behaviours and attitudes and they're not considered flawed unless there's a known reason why the information provided is unreliable. Not because anyone wants surveys to be reliable, but because they're such a common and well understood research tool. Few if any surveys force respondents to prove the correctness of their answers. Yet surveys, if designed and conducted in a vigorous, academic manner, are reliable. Claiming that a survey is unreliable just because of unsubstantiated speculation about the respondent such as assuming they're all incoherent due to their unhoused status isn't such a reason to discount it. Especially when researchers also conducted hundreds of interviews along with the questionnaires.

Originally Posted by LA21st

Of course theres a reason to lie about being from CA. They probably dont think they'd have access to resources/services if they claimed they were from some other state.
That makes total sense.

It doesn't make sense to me and clearly didn't make sense to the qualified academic researchers conducting the study nor the academics who too part in the peer review process. It's just baseless speculation which gives the impression that you're looking for excuses to ignore any data that doesn't support your prior assumptions. Unless of course you can point to a more reliable study that supports your objections.

[mhays]

The truth is in the middle.

Skepticism is always the best starting point.

Surveys and polls always have some bias because there's no way for the sample to be truly representative. There's also nuance in what questions are asked, how questions are asked, and how questions and answers are interpreted.

Some of this is captured by margin of error and some isn't.

That said, I agree that a rigorous, honest effort on a topic people will generally answer honestly will typically be in the neighborhood of the truth.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But it's not? Homelessness isn't a metro level issue. It's not the same as measuring a labor market. The perception of, blame for, and burden of fixing homelessness are city problems. Right or wrong, absolutely no one expects suburbs to share that burden.

Disagree, some policies that can and do have a tangible impact on homelessness are state-level. Or even Federal, as Trump just pointed out (borders too porous to fentanyl).

And yeah, it’s kinda like measuring a labor market: we want to know how bad homelessness is in a given city, we’re going to want to look at homeless people per capita. And the correct basis of that per capita is the metro, not arbitrary municipal bouderies.

[TexasPlaya]

Illegal drugs in vast quantities always find their way to the US. The US has undergone drug epidemics in the past.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

i prefer hobo.

Hoboes are the new unicorns.

Originally Posted by edale

Exactly. That's why it's a total myth that you can spend your way out of the problem. From a Southern California perspective, you don't have to look to Texas to see this is true. Ever wonder why Beverly Hills, Burbank, and Glendale have very few homeless, but LA is exploding with them? The former cities enforce their laws and make it difficult for the homeless to be public nuissances while LA largely turns a blind eye and lets them do whatever they want. I'm not advocating for totally cutting services for the homeless-- they have to have somewhere to go, and they need resources to be rehabilitated to functioning members of society. But doling out services and resources while expecting nothing in return (like adhering to a basic social contract) and failing to enforce laws is a recipe to become a homeless hotbed. That's the recipe that SF and LA have used so far, and we see how that's working.

For many years, SF and LA were hamstrung by a Ninth Circuit ruling that required all counties and cities in the West to have enough beds for every homeless person in their jurisdiction before local authorities were allowed to clear out even one encampment. Fortunately, that requirement was overruled by the Supreme Court about six months ago. Western counties and cities are now free to break up encampments, but it will take more time to see big changes.

Regarding the smaller cities--it's all about law enforcement. I have heard a Los Angeles County sheriff working in Santa Clarita flat-out admit that they detain the homeless and order them to leave town. LAPD doesn't have the resources--or the green light--to do that.

Originally Posted by mhays

The truth is in the middle.

Skepticism is always the best starting point.

Surveys and polls always have some bias because there's no way for the sample to be truly representative. There's also nuance in what questions are asked, how questions are asked, and how questions and answers are interpreted.

Some of this is captured by margin of error and some isn't.

That said, I agree that a rigorous, honest effort on a topic people will generally answer honestly will typically be in the neighborhood of the truth.

A friend and former forumer works for the city of San Francisco, and he has often noted that local homeless advocacy organizations and agencies are convinced they will get more funding by identifying their charges as unfortunate locals. He says the homeless are coached to say they are from the city, and the orgs and agencies themselves will count as a city resident someone who had a local place to sleep for as little as a week. I cannot verify this information, but he's been telling me that for about 20 years.

[mhays]

If a lot of them think they'll benefit from lying, maybe that's a statistically-significant effect.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by edale

Exactly. That's why it's a total myth that you can spend your way out of the problem. From a Southern California perspective, you don't have to look to Texas to see this is true. Ever wonder why Beverly Hills, Burbank, and Glendale have very few homeless, but LA is exploding with them? The former cities enforce their laws and make it difficult for the homeless to be public nuissances while LA largely turns a blind eye and lets them do whatever they want. I'm not advocating for totally cutting services for the homeless-- they have to have somewhere to go, and they need resources to be rehabilitated to functioning members of society. But doling out services and resources while expecting nothing in return (like adhering to a basic social contract) and failing to enforce laws is a recipe to become a homeless hotbed. That's the recipe that SF and LA have used so far, and we see how that's working.

This is 1000000% true

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by mhays

If a lot of them think they'll benefit from lying, maybe that's a statistically-significant effect.

Oh for sure if people are actively providing inaccurate information then that will affect any product created with that information. But concluding that such a thing happened requires more than rumour or suspicion. A little bit of reliable information that suggests the existence of such a problem is grounds to want more study and to not rely on precise numbers. But it would take solid verification of such a problem to justify writing off the results as "nonsense." For instance, we would need to cite specific problems with the survey questions rather than just that it's possible for survey problems to exist without any evidence that they actually do in a particular case. After all, while it's certainly possible for surveys to have problems, rigorous, peer reviewed studies in academic journals tend to be the least susceptible.

[LA21st]

You're just assuming that.

The burden of proof is on them. They chose to take someone's word. That's their mistake.
They have to verify, not me. It's their study. Sure some surveys don't ask for proof. But this specific survey should have. Why wouldn't the people doing the survey want to confirm the actual truth. Seems....odd.

And I never said all were mentally unwell. But I bet many are confused. You know this is true.

The study is flawed anyway. What exactly are they counting as lost housing in ca?

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by craigs

Hoboes are the new unicorns.



For many years, SF and LA were hamstrung by a Ninth Circuit ruling that required all counties and cities in the West to have enough beds for every homeless person in their jurisdiction before local authorities were allowed to clear out even one encampment. Fortunately, that requirement was overruled by the Supreme Court about six months ago. Western counties and cities are now free to break up encampments, but it will take more time to see big changes.

Regarding the smaller cities--it's all about law enforcement. I have heard a Los Angeles County sheriff working in Santa Clarita flat-out admit that they detain the homeless and order them to leave town. LAPD doesn't have the resources--or the green light--to do that.



A friend and former forumer works for the city of San Francisco, and he has often noted that local homeless advocacy organizations and agencies are convinced they will get more funding by identifying their charges as unfortunate locals. He says the homeless are coached to say they are from the city, and the orgs and agencies themselves will count as a city resident someone who had a local place to sleep for as little as a week. I cannot verify this information, but he's been telling me that for about 20 years.

This has been repeated on reddit as well.

[craigs]

55% of Sacramento residents, 57% of San Diego residents, 59% of San Francisco residents, and 63% of Los Angeles residents at the time of the 2020 census were born outside of California. When I see a claim that only 10% of the homeless in California are from outside of California, I can't help but suspect a lot of the homeless are, like most of the rest of us, transplants. My only question is how recently they arrived. San Francisco homeless advocacy groups and agencies apparently say they are locals if they arrived a couple of weeks ago as long as they had an indoor place to sleep for a week. Normally, it takes a year to establish residency when it comes to receiving state benefits.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by craigs

55% of Sacramento residents, 57% of San Diego residents, 59% of San Francisco residents, and 63% of Los Angeles residents at the time of the 2020 census were born outside of California. When I see a claim that only 10% of the homeless in California are from outside of California, I can't help but suspect a lot of the homeless are, like most of the rest of us, transplants. My only question is how recently they arrived. San Francisco homeless advocacy groups and agencies apparently say they are locals if they arrived a couple of weeks ago as long as they had an indoor place to sleep for a week. Normally, it takes a year to establish residency when it comes to receiving state benefits.

That depends on what we're talking about. For California resident tuition at a Cal State or UC, yeah, you have to live in California for at least a year before you can pay the lower CA tuition.

But I looked up other benefits, like CalFresh (California's food stamp program). There is no durational residency requirement to receive food stamps in California, you just need to show proof that you live in California, like a drivers license or electric bill or whatever, because "The county cannot require a specific type of verification be used." They do require that you only receive food stamps from the county you live in: "No individual may participate as a member of more than one household or in more than one county, in any month." In CA, counties are the entities that deal with food stamps/EBT.

I thought to look it up because new residents to California have to get a CA drivers license within 10 days of moving in, and you have 20 days to register your car and get California plates.