California homelessness? (San Francisco, Modesto, Citrus Heights: foreclosed, eviction, find a job)

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Weird you can’t even address what I posted just lob insults.

PS this thread could probably be merged because it’s the same topic just at a state level.

It's not an insult if it's the truth. No one needs to read the redundancy and there's no need to replicate everything you said when you already had every point debunked in that thread. And you've been called out by two other posters here already. No need to address what's already been addressed to you multiple times just because you choose to put blinders on.

For anyone interested in all the rebuttals to everything NJBioDude has stated multiple times, go to this link and start on page #896

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-...nt-thread.html

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

It's not an insult if it's the truth. No one needs to read the redundancy and there's no need to replicate everything you said when you already had every point debunked in that thread. And you've been called out by two other posters here already. No need to address what's already been addressed to you multiple times just because you choose to put blinders on.

For anyone interested in all the rebuttals to everything NJBioDude has stated multiple times, go to this post and start on page #896

https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-...nt-thread.html

No one debunked anything. All they said is the source was paywalled and dubious then I posted a web archive article and everyone moved on.

I posted a very reliable source stating everything I just asserted.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210503...tml?0p19G=0232

Go ahead and actually read it and then tell me which of the things I quoted was wrong.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

No one debunked anything. All they said is the source was paywalled and dubious then I posted a web archive article and everyone moved on.

Anyone can read it

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

https://web.archive.org/web/20210503...tml?0p19G=0232

Debunk away.

“64% of…Los Angeles county residents experiencing homelessness had lived in the city for more than 10 years”

“18% [in Los Angeles county] said they lived out of state before becoming homeless.”

“In San Francisco 43% of the homeless said they lived in the city for more than 10 years”.

So the majority of homeless in SF aren’t even from the city.

Source: The New York Times.

Not only are these numbers astronomically higher than the state average, the state average is higher than most other states. So yes certain cities seem to either take transplants and make them homeless or attract homeless outright. While outside of maybe San Francisco it’s clear the majority of homeless are locals, it seems that Los Angeles and SF have much higher numbers than other areas of the state and country.

As I said previously, your posts making these claims have already been debunked. Completely.

“18%” living out of state [at some time] before becoming homeless does NOT equal arriving here homeless.

It means 82% are either native Californians, or at least since reaching adulthood … and those 18% are comprised of persons who lived in state for varying lengths of time before becoming homeless as I listed for you above from data sets collected by professional agencies and academia in professionally structured surveys and studies.

Same with San Francisco. 57% having lived elsewhere than the City does NOT equal them coming from out of state. This has been extensively and exhaustively studied. They came from neighboring counties in state.

This is simply NOT your topic. Stick to something you know and understand.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

No one debunked anything. All they said is the source was paywalled and dubious then I posted a web archive article and everyone moved on.

I posted a very reliable source stating everything I just asserted.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210503...tml?0p19G=0232

Go ahead and actually read it and then tell me which of the things I quoted was wrong.

No one just “moved on” until we excoriated your faulty interpretations.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

As I said previously, your posts making these claims have already been debunked. Completely.

“18%” living out of state [at some time] before becoming homeless does NOT equal arriving here homeless.

It means 82% are either native Californians, or at least since reaching adulthood … and those 18% are comprised of persons who lived in state for varying lengths of time before becoming homeless as I listed for you above from data sets collected by professional agencies and academia in professionally structured surveys and studies.

Same with San Francisco. 57% having lived elsewhere than the City does NOT equal them coming from out of state. This has been extensively and exhaustively studied. They came from neighboring counties in state.

This is simply NOT your topic. Stick to something you know and understand.

Quote me where I said “18% living out of state means for sure they were 100% totally homeless before moving here.” What it does mean is almost 1 out of 5 homeless people are transplants from a totally different state. Again much larger than the state or national average.

What the LA and SF numbers do show is a lot of people that are homeless in those cities aren’t locals.

In SF 43% of homeless in SF have lived in the city for over 10 years according to the NYtimes. Some for sure are children etc but it also means a lot of them are transplants. As in not born here and moved here later (likely with minimal family help and questionable job skills for such a high cost of living area). That can be from a different part of the state or another state or even another country.

High cost of housing is a huge factor but addiction and tolerance of bad behavior by the cities no doubt plays a role too. In most cities in the US homeless can’t get a tent and place it on a sidewalk, shoot up drugs on the sidewalk and proceed to defecate in public. A quick walk through SF or LA shows there’s plenty of that going on in some neighborhoods. I’ve literally made eye contact with men shooting up or defecating in SF. In Raleigh NC for example where I previously lived behaving like that would have you arrested very quickly. Repeat offenders using hard intravenous drugs in public spend serious time in prison in most of the country.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

No one debunked anything. All they said is the source was paywalled and dubious then I posted a web archive article and everyone moved on.

I posted a very reliable source stating everything I just asserted.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210503...tml?0p19G=0232

Your article is 4 years old, and its author states, "Today, we have a dispatch from our colleague Marie Tae McDermott, who tackled the latest installment of our series answering readers’ questions about inequality in California. Marie Tae McDermott, is (was?) a contributor to "California Today" and "writes about reader reactions to issues covered in The New York Times."

Her profile says that she last contributed to that column during the pandemic, writing about schools reopening in California. We know nothing about her, except that you found her article somewhere and it backs up your assertion.

[citizensadvocate]

One explaination I have is that California used to be very aggressive in putting people in long prison sentences for relatively minor offences as part of their get tough movements to combat the crime wave in the 1970s and 1980s. Though they eventually realized its really not sustainable to overcrowd their prisons despite building 19 new ones and turn them into revolving doors. COVID had shown the state the serious repercussions of overcrowded prisons where the aisleways and gyms were filled with inmates. Then those people get released in masses but have no where to go nor home to go back to except onto streets unless housed in temporary housing. Also these days especially with background checks so rigid and transparent and no way to put the past behind them and a very competitive job and housing market. No one wants to associate with an ex convict. They turn to black market and illegal ways ie selling drugs to make a living and get themselves addicted to alcohol or drugs to reduce the feeling of suffering and hopelessness. They are forced to live a never ending life of crime, but the state now thinks twice before putting them back into the revolving door again which costed the state a lot of money. They used to get three meals and a cot but released they have no home to go back to and have to fend for themselves. This also has been an issue in surrounding states as well. And due a much harsher climate and a less caring government who leave them out to die without offering shelter they also Greyhound their way to CA as well.

A lot of issues are caused by years of insensitive laws and policymaking that were kneejerk reactions that have had devastating consequences over the years. I know I might as well type to a blank wall as most city data posters defending certain leaning agendas don't care about the truth anyways.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Weird you can’t even address what I posted just lob insults.

PS this thread could probably be merged because it’s the same topic just at a state level.

That's the difference why it shouldn't be moved to the LA section. I never post in the LA section because I don't live there. You can't just lump all of CA into the LA or Southern CA area. There's a lot of state out there besides your area. So please, don't suggest this thread me merged as it wouldn't be correct to do so.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Your article is 4 years old, and its author states, "Today, we have a dispatch from our colleague Marie Tae McDermott, who tackled the latest installment of our series answering readers’ questions about inequality in California. Marie Tae McDermott, is (was?) a contributor to "California Today" and "writes about reader reactions to issues covered in The New York Times."

Her profile says that she last contributed to that column during the pandemic, writing about schools reopening in California. We know nothing about her, except that you found her article somewhere and it backs up your assertion.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health...20more%20years.

Here’s a self reported survey of homeless from UC Santa Cruz about the San Francisco homeless:

29% of people in SF that are homeless weren’t in the city when they became homeless. The majority were from other parts of the state. If you read the breakdowns of how long the homeless lived in the city prior to becoming homeless you’ll find the majority were there less than 10 years—not long term locals.

If the Mercury News is correct SF (and likely LA) is much worse off with homeless migration than the majority of the surrounding state.

In my opinion if we’re going to provide housing for these people it needs to be outside the expensive metro areas. Lots of cheap land for housing in California.