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

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I lived in Austin during the worst of the homelessness, in an area that votes about 80 percent Democratic, yet I didn't know anyone who tolerated it. Our neighborhood had meetings about it and were constantly on the city's case about it. Businesses were angry about the damage the camps were doing to their business. That includes the Downtown Alliance. The Arboretum owners got involved because they were losing their customers. Customers were shying away from businesses in such areas, which were all over the place. The problem was sheer incompetence among the city council and Mayor, particularly former mayor Steve Adler. He simply didn't care, nor did some of the council members. They were misreading their constituents but at least my council member finally got it through her head that we were pissed big time. My understanding is that current mayor Kirk Watson, a staunch liberal, has started working to change things, but only gradually because it had gotten so bad, and because he can't do it alone due to the mayor-council structure. I know they are converting some old hotels to shelters around the city (finally). One of the new shelters is in a converted extended stay hotel right by the Arboretum, in an upper class neighborhood, and as you might expect, that is causing a lot of anger in that area. It's a "not in my back yard" thing.

Inner city Houston is quite liberal based on election data for quite some time, yet doesn't tolerate widespread homeless camps. I think it's largely better leadership all along.

I was referring to the leadership, not the residents; I doubt very much residents of Austin, SF or LA are very tolerant of homeless shitting up the streets but the City of Houston (liberal but not progressive) traditionally has been pretty hard assed about visible homelessness and didn't think twice about showing up with a garbage truck and breaking up encampments and have pushed the homeless away from businesses and residential areas to living under freeway overpasses.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, this discussion reinforces my view that "dirty/clean" isn't about garbage or dirt but appearances of order. Homelessness has nothing to do with whether a city is clean or dirty. And I don't agree that if I walked down, say, Halstead in Chicago, and compared to a similar arterial in Boston or LA or wherever, there would be less garbage and grime.

Hard disagree with this- Chicago is not nearly the same level of dirty as other major American cities. Even Chicago's most struggling neighborhoods have a level of cleanliness far above that of say LA or the similar neighborhoods in the East Coast Cities. I live in Philadelphia right now (used to live in Chicago), and I can say without a doubt that Philly is disgusting. The level of trash just strewn throughout the city is unacceptable. It is not the same as Chicago- not even close. Most of the examples you gave were from the Loop- I'd expect there to be more trash there (still less trash than downtown LA by a mile). My brother lives in Palms in LA- the amount of trash he encounters compared to Chicago on a daily basis is far, far higher. Like Steely said, the alleys hide most of it away. Based on my experiences I think you're dead wrong.

[SIGSEGV]

I live in the loop, which I agree, is not really all that clean (though, there are people picking up the trash daily, at least). But I stayed in a hotel in downtown PDX a few weeks ago and it was an order of magnitude less clean.

[Tom In Chicago]

In regards to those responses to my original claims. . .

A) Los Angeles has by far more homeless than any other sun belt city (the OP was referring to Dallas)

B) Chicago is very much so more clean and tidy than any city near it's size. . . this isn't even something that can be debated with a straight face. . .

C) Dallas - while technically a "blue" city - is in a "red" state and culturally and visibly less "blue" than what people are commonly talking about (it's very much more culturally conservative than it's peers). . . I think the OP is generally speaking about visible homelessness and probably the fact that there is less street life in Dallas and less tolerance for people camping on the sidewalks in areas that do have street life. . .

. . .

[eschaton]

To generalize about the homeless population across regions:

1. The West has the highest number of homeless people (both per capita and in absolute numbers). Most of the homeless population is unsheltered, leading to large tent encampments.

2. The Northeast has the second-highest number of homeless people, but most homeless people are sheltered. You might see them begging for change, but they don't sleep on the streets overnight.

3. The South has comparably few homeless people, but also spends very little on services, so to the extent they exist, they often live unsheltered.

4. The Midwest has few homeless people per capita, and out of that population, very few are unsheltered.

It's also worth noting in Sun Belt cities a lot of areas which are traditionally thought of as "public" are in fact privately owned, which means evicting the homeless is a fairly straightforward thing.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The per capita here is pretty misleading if it's city and not metro population (which I bet it is).

I believe the numbers are split up by municipality. There are several cities on the list that are in the same metro areas (e.g. SF and Oakland, LA and Long Beach). That said, homelessness is mostly a problem delegated to cities anyway.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

To generalize about the homeless population across regions:

1. The West has the highest number of homeless people (both per capita and in absolute numbers). Most of the homeless population is unsheltered, leading to large tent encampments.

2. The Northeast has the second-highest number of homeless people, but most homeless people are sheltered. You might see them begging for change, but they don't sleep on the streets overnight.

3. The South has comparably few homeless people, but also spends very little on services, so to the extent they exist, they often live unsheltered.

4. The Midwest has few homeless people per capita, and out of that population, very few are unsheltered.

It's also worth noting in Sun Belt cities a lot of areas which are traditionally thought of as "public" are in fact privately owned, which means evicting the homeless is a fairly straightforward thing.

And I think what we're really talking about is "unsheltered" people. I'm skeptical that anyone would be paying much attention to the issue if all else was the same but the unhoused people were sleeping in shelters or hotels rather than in tent cities.

[iheartthed]

Reduction or complete elimination of single-room occupancy units could also be fueling the unsheltered crisis on the west coast.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I believe the numbers are split up by municipality. There are several cities on the list that are in the same metro areas (e.g. SF and Oakland, LA and Long Beach). That said, homelessness is mostly a problem delegated to cities anyway.

Sure but the majority of unhoused people in metro MSP will congregate in Minneapolis (and maybe St. Paul), so per capita a city like Minneapolis which is a relatively smaller fraction of its metro area will look worse than a city like Milwaukee or Chicago which is a relatively larger fraction of its metro area by population.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Sure but the majority of unhoused people in metro MSP will congregate in Minneapolis (and maybe St. Paul), so per capita a city like Minneapolis which is a relatively smaller fraction of its metro area will look worse than a city like Milwaukee or Chicago which is a relatively larger fraction of its metro area by population.

Yes. "city proper" and "per capita" are dangerous when combined for the sake of comparisons.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yes. "city proper" and "per capita" are dangerous when combined for the sake of comparisons.

it's probably about as silly as comparing skyscapers per capita between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Sure but the majority of unhoused people in metro MSP will congregate in Minneapolis (and maybe St. Paul), so per capita a city like Minneapolis which is a relatively smaller fraction of its metro area will look worse than a city like Milwaukee or Chicago which is a relatively larger fraction of its metro area by population.

Not sure I follow. Minneapolis's unhoused numbers are worse than Chicago's whether you look at it from the metro or city level. Chicagoland is 3x the size of Metro Minneapolis while Minneapolis's raw unhoused count is more than half of Chicago's.

That said, I will push back on portraying this at the metro level because this problem isn't a metro level burden. Individual municipalities are typically forced to bear the brunt of regional homeless issues.

[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!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Reduction or complete elimination of single-room occupancy units could also be fueling the unsheltered crisis on the west coast.

Absolutely, but this was due to fire codes primarily, and it wasn't just the West Coast. It happened over 50 years ago in my area.

My area just legalized SROs again (meaning not just for students). Some got built in a brief period a decade ago, and they're popular, with very cheap rents. These are great for retirees and service workers on the edge of homelessness.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by eschaton

To generalize about the homeless population across regions:

1. The West has the highest number of homeless people (both per capita and in absolute numbers). Most of the homeless population is unsheltered, leading to large tent encampments.

2. The Northeast has the second-highest number of homeless people, but most homeless people are sheltered. You might see them begging for change, but they don't sleep on the streets overnight.

3. The South has comparably few homeless people, but also spends very little on services, so to the extent they exist, they often live unsheltered.

4. The Midwest has few homeless people per capita, and out of that population, very few are unsheltered.

It's also worth noting in Sun Belt cities a lot of areas which are traditionally thought of as "public" are in fact privately owned, which means evicting the homeless is a fairly straightforward thing.

Florida (3rd), Texas (5th), Arizona (8th), and Georgia (10th) are in the top 10 for amount of homeless people (However, not per Capita).

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

And I think what we're really talking about is "unsheltered" people. I'm skeptical that anyone would be paying much attention to the issue if all else was the same but the unhoused people were sleeping in shelters or hotels rather than in tent cities.

I think people don't like seeing the mentally disordered and/or drug addicts in public places in general, regardless of whether they have a place to stay the night.

My general experience has also been that panhandlers (at least locally) are far more likely to not be homeless. Rents are low enough in Pittsburgh that you can find a Section 8 unit somewhere, take a free bus pass into town, and panhandle all day. In contrast, the hardcore homeless mostly keep to themselves and don't bother asking for money.

[JManc]

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 "domicile-ly challenged".

[mhays]

Again, I wouldn't trust those numbers. While a 3:1 ratio between two cities' counts (hypothetically) probably means one city has a lot more, and 3:2 ratio could be in the massive margin of error. These are volunteer-staffed, wildly different efforts.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

I live in Philadelphia right now (used to live in Chicago), and I can say without a doubt that Philly is disgusting. The level of trash just strewn throughout the city is unacceptable.

Good grief, take it down a notch. This reads like a Forbes editorial. You must be new, lol.

East Coast cities generally don't have the same sense of orderliness/tidiness as those in the Midwest (most of it having to do with much less residential density/foot traffic or much more coordinated/better planned trash management). And I'm not saying Philly doesn't still have a lot of room to improve upon, but litter/trash control is definitely going in the right direction, for sure.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That said, I will push back on portraying this at the metro level because this problem isn't a metro level burden. Individual municipalities are typically forced to bear the brunt of regional homeless issues.

The correct way to compare stats is at the metro level though: the whole metro is the “source” for the homeless, but they nearly all gather downtown.

Number of homeless in the downtown / metro area pop
is a much more reasonable measurement than
Number of homeless in the downtown / core city city proper pop