Empty streets. Homeless everywhere. Many clearly mentally ill. Tents on sidewalks. And a yuppie class that walks by pretending it isnt happening.

I am looking over my shoulder the entire time I am walking around. It is unnerving

How did the promise of this medium sized rocky mountain city go so wrong?

Interesting article.
Worth a read.


https://coloradosun.com/2021/06/27/home ... -pandemic/

“This doesn’t work,” Cornelius said while watching a sweep on Pearl Street. “I’m also sympathetic to businesses or tenants who don’t want poop in the front yard, who don’t want maybe their water tapped into or people in their yard, or garbage in the area of where they walk. I get that. But that’s the city’s responsibility. You can’t fault the people who have no ability to change that for themselves.”

The city wastes public dollars to clean up a camp, only to have it return — sometimes the next day, she said. “They will be there until the garbage piles up to the point of being a problem and then they will be swept again.”

But Dreyer, the mayor’s deputy chief of staff, says Denver residents dialing the mayor’s office are pretty clear about what they want: the tents near their homes removed and the sidewalks cleaned up.

“The vast majority of all of the calls and complaints that we receive do not have anything to do with ‘Please bring a Porta Potty to the street down from me,’” he said. “They don’t.”

Homelessness will not go away with random cleanup days. Society needs better answers.
Picking on one city doesn't do justice to the issue that exists throughout the country.

When its not the government fault (because they are of my leaning) its society's fault.
Society fault means, it would never be fixed, unless the entire societal structure is dismantled. And yes, by government's force.

I wonder why we don't see that on some other cities and just some cities.

Incentives matter, welcome homeless people, you’ll get more homeless people.

A mix of issues had caused the massive increase of homelessness in almost all urban and some suburban areas of the USA. They include:

Unaffordable housing
Persons with criminal records especially for sex crimes banned from living anywhere near a school or other public facility or otherwise limited where they can live. Most government subsidized housing bans anyone with sex crimes and drug related convictions.
Low wages
Poor or no marketable work skills or work history
Divorce, being GLTBQ+ with mental or psychological illness and tossed to the streets by family
Spousal or family mental or physical abuse
Mental, psychological or physical illness, disability. Lack of access for help for them
Drug or alcohol addictions
Some communities that give some support to the homeless that encourage them to live in them
Poor enforcement of use of public and private areas
Not legal residing in the USA
Fugitives from justice, debt collection, owe child support
Not enough savings to pay for rental or utility deposits
Lost jobs, income from investments
Money stolen from them
Lost ID, other critical papers
NIMBY's and developers who see no profit in affordable housing
There are others too.

For some, like for example homeless US military veterans with mental and physical health problems, can be targeted for help easier and is politically beneficial to both the vet and politicians. Some cities have actually given one-way bus tickets to a former home city or town to get rid of them. Dealing with homelessness will require a lot of money, patience, smart thinking and effort but it does need to be dealt with to improve the lives of all.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Incentives matter, welcome homeless people, you’ll get more homeless people.

It isn't always that simple, though I can understand why it appears so.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/26/nyc-homel ... ng-cities/

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/10/2 ... e-claimed/

AirWorthy99 wrote:

When its not the government fault (because they are of my leaning) its society's fault.
Society fault means, it would never be fixed, unless the entire societal structure is dismantled. And yes, by government's force.

I wonder why we don't see that on some other cities and just some cities.

Does apportioning blame really help solve an issue that has been with us in our cities since the 1930s? I don't think so.

If you look at the top 5 homeless cities in the world, obviously political party is not a common thread. It just isn't that kind of issue - politics is part of it, so is the economy, so is culture.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/ ... 9809fbf287

jfklganyc wrote:

Empty streets. Homeless everywhere. Many clearly mentally ill. Tents on sidewalks. And a yuppie class that walks by pretending it isnt happening.

Not sure that is a fair characterization. There are a lot of people who care - they just feel powerless to make any meaningful impact.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

When its not the government fault (because they are of my leaning) its society's fault.
Society fault means, it would never be fixed, unless the entire societal structure is dismantled. And yes, by government's force.

I wonder why we don't see that on some other cities and just some cities.

Does apportioning blame really help solve an issue that has been with us in our cities since the 1930s? I don't think so.

If you look at the top 5 homeless cities in the world, obviously political party is not a common thread. It just isn't that kind of issue - politics is part of it, so is the economy, so is culture.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/ ... 9809fbf287

One way of avoiding the issue is to show other cities in the world.

The top ten cities in the US with homelessness are all ruled by the same political party. If that's not coincidence I don't know what it is. What do they have in common?

I know you said the weather in CA is great, how about the weather in NY or Boston?

https://lowincomerelief.com/u-s-cities- ... -homeless/

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

When its not the government fault (because they are of my leaning) its society's fault.
Society fault means, it would never be fixed, unless the entire societal structure is dismantled. And yes, by government's force.

I wonder why we don't see that on some other cities and just some cities.

Does apportioning blame really help solve an issue that has been with us in our cities since the 1930s? I don't think so.

If you look at the top 5 homeless cities in the world, obviously political party is not a common thread. It just isn't that kind of issue - politics is part of it, so is the economy, so is culture.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/ ... 9809fbf287

One way of avoiding the issue is to show other cities in the world.

The top ten cities in the US with homelessness are all ruled by the same political party. If that's not coincidence I don't know what it is. What do they have in common?

I know you said the weather in CA is great, how about the weather in NY or Boston?

https://lowincomerelief.com/u-s-cities- ... -homeless/

Not my fault if you missed the point of seeing which world cities have the most homelessness.

Political party is a coincidence, absolutely. There is zero statistical significance to the claim it is obviously due to local politics. That would be an 'F' paper in any critical thinking class. There are hundreds more cities that are 'ruled by' blue mayors that are not in the top 10. See how that works?

Here's something that is statistically significant - especially when considering people who are homeless for temporary reasons such as job loss, sudden breakup, family estrangement, damage to their credit, etc. These are the top 10 cities in 2020 by median 1 BR rent:

San Francisco, CA: $3,500
New York, NY: $3,000
Boston, MA: $2,590
Oakland, CA: $2,500
San Jose, CA: $2,450
Los Angeles, CA: $2,260
Washington, DC: $2,260
Seattle, WA: $1,890
San Diego, CA: $1,790
Miami, FL: $1,800

https://www.fortunebuilders.com/top-10- ... est-rents/

Pop quiz: if you had any of the situations I described above, is it going to be easier or harder to get into new housing and avoid homelessness in one of these cities? Should not be a difficult question.

Hint: the above list matches your top 10 list 9 out of 10.

In order to find "answers," people would need to be willing to read books and gain knowledge on fact-based criminal studies topics. Sociology, also quite popular, explains why vagrants will gather in desirable places and set up a new "society," if voters decide to let them do that. People do whatever is easiest. Drug users do whatever will get them as high as possible, for as long as possible.

None of this (homelessness, drug use) is new. Policing is thousands of years old. It is as old as the first cities. Knowledge and courage to stand up for knowledge are declining.

I think people actually enjoy the smug feeling of sacrificing someone else's property at the hands of wild vagrants and bums. So, I expect this will continue for a long time. This isn't necessarily bad. Many people gain from this. Careers will be enhanced because of it.

LCDFlight wrote:

In order to find "answers," people would need to be willing to read books and gain knowledge on fact-based criminal studies topics. Sociology, also quite popular, explains why vagrants will gather in desirable places and set up a new "society," if voters decide to let them do that.

1. What is fact-based criminal studies - are you referring to the field of 'criminology' or pop psychology books that claim their observations on criminals are factual?

2. Use of the term 'vagrant' is pretty disingenuous. Not everyone who is homeless is out actively begging - figures vary but anywhere from 15% to 40% of homeless are either employed or in and out of work while homeless, depending on the city. Would you seriously characterize these folks as criminals or vagrants?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDvwdooAGYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HAN7J0M54A

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

In order to find "answers," people would need to be willing to read books and gain knowledge on fact-based criminal studies topics. Sociology, also quite popular, explains why vagrants will gather in desirable places and set up a new "society," if voters decide to let them do that.

1. What is fact-based criminal studies - are you referring to the field of 'criminology' or pop psychology books that claim their observations on criminals are factual?

2. Use of the term 'vagrant' is pretty disingenuous. Not everyone who is homeless is out actively begging - figures vary but anywhere from 15% to 40% of homeless are either employed or in and out of work while homeless, depending on the city. Would you seriously characterize these folks as criminals or vagrants?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDvwdooAGYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HAN7J0M54A

Criminal studies aka Criminology, exactly. I am including illegal camping and "bathroom relief" as an example of general lawlessness.

If people are following the law, then no, I don't have a problem with people being poor. I don't think you automatically have a right to reside in Atherton Ca or the Upper East Side of Manhattan if you aren't willing to follow the laws put in place by voters there about living there. You might ask, do I have the money to put down a deposit for a rental or a home in this expensive location? No? Gee, well I better be on my way, to avoid breaking the law there.

Denver has vagrants then.

Lots and lots of vagrants.

Begging, hollering, drugged up, spaced out people living on the streets in squalor.

The political aspect between the Democrats and the Republicans comes into play in clearing them off the street or making excuses for why they should continue to live on the street unless they choose not to (which is a false choice because vagrants living on the street that are drugged up or mentally ill have lost their ability to make sound decisions)

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

In order to find "answers," people would need to be willing to read books and gain knowledge on fact-based criminal studies topics. Sociology, also quite popular, explains why vagrants will gather in desirable places and set up a new "society," if voters decide to let them do that.

1. What is fact-based criminal studies - are you referring to the field of 'criminology' or pop psychology books that claim their observations on criminals are factual?

2. Use of the term 'vagrant' is pretty disingenuous. Not everyone who is homeless is out actively begging - figures vary but anywhere from 15% to 40% of homeless are either employed or in and out of work while homeless, depending on the city. Would you seriously characterize these folks as criminals or vagrants?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDvwdooAGYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HAN7J0M54A

Criminal studies aka Criminology, exactly. I am including illegal camping and "bathroom relief" as an example of general lawlessness.

If people are following the law, then no, I don't have a problem with people being poor. I don't think you automatically have a right to reside in Atherton Ca or the Upper East Side of Manhattan if you aren't willing to follow the laws put in place by voters there about living there. You might ask, do I have the money to put down a deposit for a rental or a home in this expensive location? No? Gee, well I better be on my way, to avoid breaking the law there.

Have you heard of Martin v. Boise? At least here out west, your positions on illegal camping and whether or not people are 'following the law' are not relevant when it comes to homeless using public land.

https://archive.curbed.com/2019/4/5/182 ... eals-court

SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal, so if shelters are full and individuals don't have anywhere else to go, they cannot be penalized for sleeping on public property. It is incumbent on cities/counties to ensure they have the shelter and SRO capacity to meet those needs.

jfklganyc wrote:

Denver has vagrants then.

Lots and lots of vagrants.

Begging, hollering, drugged up, spaced out people living on the streets in squalor.

The political aspect between the Democrats and the Republicans comes into play in clearing them off the street or making excuses for why they should continue to live on the street unless they choose not to (which is a false choice because vagrants living on the street that are drugged up or mentally ill have lost their ability to make sound decisions)

Then it's not really a political issue, like I said. Neither 'clearing them off the street' or 'excuses/enabling living on the street' solves the problem of the condition those people are in. This requires a major paradigm shift in legal definitions of personhood, freedom of movement, and who makes decisions for adults who are not of sound mind to do so.

Curious. That wasn’t my experience at all in Denver when I last visited a couple years ago. Have things changed that much? The OP sounds much closer to what I saw in San Francisco…recently visited there for the first time in many years and could not believe the sheer number of mentally ill and drug addicts experiencing homelessness there. Granted it had been a while since I last visited SFO and I remembered there being a lot of homelessness then, but today the problem seems many times worse…don’t remember it being as aggressive an issue it is today.

Yeah that’s why I asked what happened in Denver because it’s vastly different than it was

flyguy89 wrote:

Curious. That wasn’t my experience at all in Denver when I last visited a couple years ago. Have things changed that much? The OP sounds much closer to what I saw in San Francisco…recently visited there for the first time in many years and could not believe the sheer number of mentally ill and drug addicts experiencing homelessness there. Granted it had been a while since I last visited SFO and I remembered there being a lot of homelessness then, but today the problem seems many times worse…don’t remember it being as aggressive an issue it is today.

I would say yes.. My friend in NJ went with his son to visit Colorado flew into DEN and he said the same thing about Denver this was a week ago. Our country is quickly growing into a third would nation especially in our large cities. I am sure a lot of things contribute to it but neither party seems to be doing much about it.. It's all about the next election for them.

Every time this issue comes up, the right throws out red meat for it's base. Republican cities and states cut funding for things like affordable housing and affordable health care then turn around and blame "liberals" for problems. Remember all the cuts and failures by GWB at the VA which were then blamed on Obama? Republicans stripping ACA and blaming "liberals" for not doing anything about the poor health care service?

There are many, many, many factors about homeless people. Mental health facilities being shut down, low wages, high cost of housing, narrow minded family members... the cause is not for one political party only. We are only as strong as the weakest among us. By refusing to take care of them in some way, whether that be affordable health care, getting veterans into the VA system, converting abandoned buildings into housing, it shows we don't really care about anything but ourselves.

Of course, we can't do any of that because that would mean paying taxes....

flyguy89 wrote:

Curious. That wasn’t my experience at all in Denver when I last visited a couple years ago. Have things changed that much? The OP sounds much closer to what I saw in San Francisco…recently visited there for the first time in many years and could not believe the sheer number of mentally ill and drug addicts experiencing homelessness there. Granted it had been a while since I last visited SFO and I remembered there being a lot of homelessness then, but today the problem seems many times worse…don’t remember it being as aggressive an issue it is today.

It's relative. Things have changed in my community too. I remember the shock first seeing beggars with signs on highway onramps. It was unfathomable. Now, it's normal. It's our community values and culture that are changing. It's normal for a beef to escalate to gunfire now, and often cops are blamed, either for being there, or not being there.

On one hand, we are super sensitive about micro-aggressions and theoretically non-inclusive speech. On the other hand, crime is no problem.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Does apportioning blame really help solve an issue that has been with us in our cities since the 1930s? I don't think so.

If you look at the top 5 homeless cities in the world, obviously political party is not a common thread. It just isn't that kind of issue - politics is part of it, so is the economy, so is culture.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/ ... 9809fbf287

One way of avoiding the issue is to show other cities in the world.

The top ten cities in the US with homelessness are all ruled by the same political party. If that's not coincidence I don't know what it is. What do they have in common?

I know you said the weather in CA is great, how about the weather in NY or Boston?

https://lowincomerelief.com/u-s-cities- ... -homeless/

Not my fault if you missed the point of seeing which world cities have the most homelessness.

Political party is a coincidence, absolutely. There is zero statistical significance to the claim it is obviously due to local politics. That would be an 'F' paper in any critical thinking class. There are hundreds more cities that are 'ruled by' blue mayors that are not in the top 10. See how that works?

Here's something that is statistically significant - especially when considering people who are homeless for temporary reasons such as job loss, sudden breakup, family estrangement, damage to their credit, etc. These are the top 10 cities in 2020 by median 1 BR rent:

San Francisco, CA: $3,500
New York, NY: $3,000
Boston, MA: $2,590
Oakland, CA: $2,500
San Jose, CA: $2,450
Los Angeles, CA: $2,260
Washington, DC: $2,260
Seattle, WA: $1,890
San Diego, CA: $1,790
Miami, FL: $1,800

https://www.fortunebuilders.com/top-10- ... est-rents/

Pop quiz: if you had any of the situations I described above, is it going to be easier or harder to get into new housing and avoid homelessness in one of these cities? Should not be a difficult question.

Hint: the above list matches your top 10 list 9 out of 10.

As if the housing costs have a significant impact on homelessness in those places. An addict, a person with mental issues, etc can afford a 1000 dollar rent. You know very well that's not at play here.

In Miami, close to home, you got homelessness too, the difference is they aren't on every sidewalk or in front of businesses as many of the other cities you mention. Probably because they enforce the law and prohibit homeless to do that. In Miami you got a Republican mayor, probably that's why.

People that can't afford CA prices just leave CA completely, as they have done, not become part of the homeless population voluntarily.

As for Denver, was there last January, I noticed this too, and the amount of businesses burned during the summer riots too.

jfklganyc wrote:

Empty streets. Homeless everywhere. Many clearly mentally ill. Tents on sidewalks. And a yuppie class that walks by pretending it isnt happening.

I am looking over my shoulder the entire time I am walking around. It is unnerving

How did the promise of this medium sized rocky mountain city go so wrong?

Have you seen the Homeless in California? It's way worse than non Homeless people can imagine. I'm afraid Homelessness will be the new norm in the USA but sadly, Homelessness will double in 5 Years.

"Pop quiz: if you had any of the situations I described above, is it going to be easier or harder to get into new housing and avoid homelessness in one of these cities? Should not be a difficult question"

If you simply can't afford the rent in big cities, best live in the Suburbs where rent is cheaper. Officials say we have a lack of housing. The truth is: We have a lack of affordable housing. I guess Officials don't want to use the word "affordable".

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

One way of avoiding the issue is to show other cities in the world.

The top ten cities in the US with homelessness are all ruled by the same political party. If that's not coincidence I don't know what it is. What do they have in common?

I know you said the weather in CA is great, how about the weather in NY or Boston?

https://lowincomerelief.com/u-s-cities- ... -homeless/

Not my fault if you missed the point of seeing which world cities have the most homelessness.

Political party is a coincidence, absolutely. There is zero statistical significance to the claim it is obviously due to local politics. That would be an 'F' paper in any critical thinking class. There are hundreds more cities that are 'ruled by' blue mayors that are not in the top 10. See how that works?

Here's something that is statistically significant - especially when considering people who are homeless for temporary reasons such as job loss, sudden breakup, family estrangement, damage to their credit, etc. These are the top 10 cities in 2020 by median 1 BR rent:

San Francisco, CA: $3,500
New York, NY: $3,000
Boston, MA: $2,590
Oakland, CA: $2,500
San Jose, CA: $2,450
Los Angeles, CA: $2,260
Washington, DC: $2,260
Seattle, WA: $1,890
San Diego, CA: $1,790
Miami, FL: $1,800

https://www.fortunebuilders.com/top-10- ... est-rents/

Pop quiz: if you had any of the situations I described above, is it going to be easier or harder to get into new housing and avoid homelessness in one of these cities? Should not be a difficult question.

Hint: the above list matches your top 10 list 9 out of 10.

As if the housing costs have a significant impact on homelessness in those places. An addict, a person with mental issues, etc can afford a 1000 dollar rent. You know very well that's not at play here.

In Miami, close to home, you got homelessness too, the difference is they aren't on every sidewalk or in front of businesses as many of the other cities you mention. Probably because they enforce the law and prohibit homeless to do that. In Miami you got a Republican mayor, probably that's why.

People that can't afford CA prices just leave CA completely, as they have done, not become part of the homeless population voluntarily.

As for Denver, was there last January, I noticed this too, and the amount of businesses burned during the summer riots too.

One problem I do know maybe not related to homelessness but certainly not helping is the number of businesses buying up all the property and foreign countries buying everything up...I saw one good thing Canada is Trudeau is promising he will introduce if elected a 2 year moratorium on foreign home buyers. Might not be a bad idea to make that permanent and apply it here as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... re-elected

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

One way of avoiding the issue is to show other cities in the world.

The top ten cities in the US with homelessness are all ruled by the same political party. If that's not coincidence I don't know what it is. What do they have in common?

I know you said the weather in CA is great, how about the weather in NY or Boston?

https://lowincomerelief.com/u-s-cities- ... -homeless/

Not my fault if you missed the point of seeing which world cities have the most homelessness.

Political party is a coincidence, absolutely. There is zero statistical significance to the claim it is obviously due to local politics. That would be an 'F' paper in any critical thinking class. There are hundreds more cities that are 'ruled by' blue mayors that are not in the top 10. See how that works?

Here's something that is statistically significant - especially when considering people who are homeless for temporary reasons such as job loss, sudden breakup, family estrangement, damage to their credit, etc. These are the top 10 cities in 2020 by median 1 BR rent:

San Francisco, CA: $3,500
New York, NY: $3,000
Boston, MA: $2,590
Oakland, CA: $2,500
San Jose, CA: $2,450
Los Angeles, CA: $2,260
Washington, DC: $2,260
Seattle, WA: $1,890
San Diego, CA: $1,790
Miami, FL: $1,800

https://www.fortunebuilders.com/top-10- ... est-rents/

Pop quiz: if you had any of the situations I described above, is it going to be easier or harder to get into new housing and avoid homelessness in one of these cities? Should not be a difficult question.

Hint: the above list matches your top 10 list 9 out of 10.

As if the housing costs have a significant impact on homelessness in those places. An addict, a person with mental issues, etc can afford a 1000 dollar rent. You know very well that's not at play here.

In Miami, close to home, you got homelessness too, the difference is they aren't on every sidewalk or in front of businesses as many of the other cities you mention. Probably because they enforce the law and prohibit homeless to do that. In Miami you got a Republican mayor, probably that's why.

People that can't afford CA prices just leave CA completely, as they have done, not become part of the homeless population voluntarily.

As for Denver, was there last January, I noticed this too, and the amount of businesses burned during the summer riots too.

So where do homeless people in Miami go?.

We have a problem of cheaper, mass produced drugs that have really come into play the last 20 years.
Couple that with rising costs of living in areas that historically were cheap (and sketchy) where people could rent for cheap, and have access to services.
We tore down a great many of publicly subsidized housing units (see State Street Corridor in Chicago, Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis) because they were cesspools, but did nothing to replace the capacity. No matter what grandiose bellicose rhetoric one espouses, nobody wants these in their backyard (understandably).
We haven't built enough houses to keep up with demand, no matter which state you live in.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The top ten cities in the US with homelessness are all ruled by the same political party. If that's not coincidence I don't know what it is. What do they have in common?/

What do they have in common? Short sighted arm chair analysis...

20 years of Republican leadership under Giuliani and Bloomberg did nothing to help the numbers of homelessness in NYC any better than their Democratic counterparts.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny ... -1.3826927

Meanwhile Florida ranks as 15th in the country with its homeless population in spite of its spectacular leadership. https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/new ... ation.html
Florida is going to see a California/Seattle effect in the next decade following its influx of residents if for no other reason that they have a housing shortage already.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

As if the housing costs have a significant impact on homelessness in those places. An addict, a person with mental issues, etc can afford a 1000 dollar rent. You know very well that's not at play here.

I very well know you don't know what you're talking about. If an addict has $1,000 they are going to shoot it up their arm or smoke it. They aren't going to pay rent. A personal with mental illness on disability receives on average of of $1300/month. You can't pay $1,000/month rent with that income, if for no other reason than most places have income standards that require 3-4 times monthly income as proof of income, c'mon now, try harder. This assumes they could hang on the twelve months or longer it takes to receive SSDI and that they were mentally organized enough to be able to get it. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/di ... yment.html

dc10lover wrote:

The truth is: We have a lack of affordable housing. I guess Officials don't want to use the word "affordable".

It’s all the same at the end of the end of the day. Fact of the matter is many cities in California are spending ungodly amounts of money on affordable housing…$600-700K per unit, on designated affordable housing. Cities cannot afford to add much affordable housing at those costs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... s.amp.html

luckyone wrote:

We have a problem of cheaper, mass produced drugs that have really come into play the last 20 years.
Couple that with rising costs of living in areas that historically were cheap (and sketchy) where people could rent for cheap, and have access to services.
We tore down a great many of publicly subsidized housing units (see State Street Corridor in Chicago, Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis) because they were cesspools, but did nothing to replace the capacity. No matter what grandiose bellicose rhetoric one espouses, nobody wants these in their backyard (understandably).
We haven't built enough houses to keep up with demand, no matter which state you live in.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The top ten cities in the US with homelessness are all ruled by the same political party. If that's not coincidence I don't know what it is. What do they have in common?/

What do they have in common? Short sighted arm chair analysis...

20 years of Republican leadership under Giuliani and Bloomberg did nothing to help the numbers of homelessness in NYC any better than their Democratic counterparts.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny ... -1.3826927

Meanwhile Florida ranks as 15th in the country with its homeless population in spite of its spectacular leadership. https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/new ... ation.html
Florida is going to see a California/Seattle effect in the next decade following its influx of residents if for no other reason that they have a housing shortage already.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

As if the housing costs have a significant impact on homelessness in those places. An addict, a person with mental issues, etc can afford a 1000 dollar rent. You know very well that's not at play here.

I very well know you don't know what you're talking about. If an addict has $1,000 they are going to shoot it up their arm or smoke it. They aren't going to pay rent. A personal with mental illness on disability receives on average of of $1300/month. You can't pay $1,000/month rent with that income, if for no other reason than most places have income standards that require 3-4 times monthly income as proof of income, c'mon now, try harder. This assumes they could hang on the twelve months or longer it takes to receive SSDI and that they were mentally organized enough to be able to get it. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/di ... yment.html

Sorry, a typo, meant to say can't.

In any case I am pretty sure the vast majority of the homeless population that has encamped on the street and sidewalks of all of those cities, in front of businesses and private homes, they are homeless not because of 'lack of affordable housing' but for their personal issues, either addiction or mental health. Those local governments allow this to happen, either by not enforcing the laws or having laws that allow them to do this.

So the issue is addiction and mental problems. The rest of us who can't afford rent because its too high, those aren't filling the streets. Most of them if anything they move to a cheaper city or state. That's all.

Yes there is a lack of housing, but more government involvement won't help. Less regulation less government involvement would allow for private enterprise to work out the demand.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

We have a problem of cheaper, mass produced drugs that have really come into play the last 20 years.
Couple that with rising costs of living in areas that historically were cheap (and sketchy) where people could rent for cheap, and have access to services.
We tore down a great many of publicly subsidized housing units (see State Street Corridor in Chicago, Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis) because they were cesspools, but did nothing to replace the capacity. No matter what grandiose bellicose rhetoric one espouses, nobody wants these in their backyard (understandably).
We haven't built enough houses to keep up with demand, no matter which state you live in.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The top ten cities in the US with homelessness are all ruled by the same political party. If that's not coincidence I don't know what it is. What do they have in common?/

What do they have in common? Short sighted arm chair analysis...

20 years of Republican leadership under Giuliani and Bloomberg did nothing to help the numbers of homelessness in NYC any better than their Democratic counterparts.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny ... -1.3826927

Meanwhile Florida ranks as 15th in the country with its homeless population in spite of its spectacular leadership. https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/new ... ation.html
Florida is going to see a California/Seattle effect in the next decade following its influx of residents if for no other reason that they have a housing shortage already.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

As if the housing costs have a significant impact on homelessness in those places. An addict, a person with mental issues, etc can afford a 1000 dollar rent. You know very well that's not at play here.

I very well know you don't know what you're talking about. If an addict has $1,000 they are going to shoot it up their arm or smoke it. They aren't going to pay rent. A personal with mental illness on disability receives on average of of $1300/month. You can't pay $1,000/month rent with that income, if for no other reason than most places have income standards that require 3-4 times monthly income as proof of income, c'mon now, try harder. This assumes they could hang on the twelve months or longer it takes to receive SSDI and that they were mentally organized enough to be able to get it. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/di ... yment.html

Sorry, a typo, meant to say can't.

In any case I am pretty sure the vast majority of the homeless population that has encamped on the street and sidewalks of all of those cities, in front of businesses and private homes, they are homeless not because of 'lack of affordable housing' but for their personal issues, either addiction or mental health. Those local governments allow this to happen, either by not enforcing the laws or having laws that allow them to do this.

So the issue is addiction and mental problems. The rest of us who can't afford rent because its too high, those aren't filling the streets. Most of them if anything they move to a cheaper city or state. That's all.

Yes there is a lack of housing, but more government involvement won't help. Less regulation less government involvement would allow for private enterprise to work out the demand.

Again missing the critical thinking component: yes, many long-term homeless are addicts or mentally ill, but how? Many encountered the temporary homelessness scenarios I described earlier, and then became permanently homeless. Some were always addicts, of course that may have contributed to their initial job loss. The challenge with homelessness is each person's journey to that way of life is its own story. You would know this if you have ever volunteered or worked with organizations assisting homeless transitions.

For people who encounter the initial homelessness scenarios I described, time is cancer. The longer they are out of a job, the harder it will be to get one. The longer they are out on the street or living in their car and cannot return to their previous life, the more likely it is their stress levels will result in mental illness, drug use, or both. Without help from family or significant savings, they don't have the funds to simply relocate to other cities or the suburbs.

For some reason this issue invites people to paint everything with a broad brush, but anyone doing so isn't actually interested in solutions. They just don't want to have to see it.

What is your take on the court case I highlighted? The Supreme Court refused to take it on appeal, so the 9th Circuit decision stands.

dc10lover wrote:

"Pop quiz: if you had any of the situations I described above, is it going to be easier or harder to get into new housing and avoid homelessness in one of these cities? Should not be a difficult question"

If you simply can't afford the rent in big cities, best live in the Suburbs where rent is cheaper. Officials say we have a lack of housing. The truth is: We have a lack of affordable housing. I guess Officials don't want to use the word "affordable".

This is not realistic for people who find themselves in such circumstances. Suburbs are not that inexpensive in the cities listed, for one, and most US cities have seen dramatic increases in rent even in the 'bad' neighborhoods that have traditionally been cheaper. The cheapest listing I found that wasn't for students in SF's Tenderloin was $1300:

https://www.apartments.com/san-francisco-ca-94102/

bennett123 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Not my fault if you missed the point of seeing which world cities have the most homelessness.

Political party is a coincidence, absolutely. There is zero statistical significance to the claim it is obviously due to local politics. That would be an 'F' paper in any critical thinking class. There are hundreds more cities that are 'ruled by' blue mayors that are not in the top 10. See how that works?

Here's something that is statistically significant - especially when considering people who are homeless for temporary reasons such as job loss, sudden breakup, family estrangement, damage to their credit, etc. These are the top 10 cities in 2020 by median 1 BR rent:

San Francisco, CA: $3,500
New York, NY: $3,000
Boston, MA: $2,590
Oakland, CA: $2,500
San Jose, CA: $2,450
Los Angeles, CA: $2,260
Washington, DC: $2,260
Seattle, WA: $1,890
San Diego, CA: $1,790
Miami, FL: $1,800

https://www.fortunebuilders.com/top-10- ... est-rents/

Pop quiz: if you had any of the situations I described above, is it going to be easier or harder to get into new housing and avoid homelessness in one of these cities? Should not be a difficult question.

Hint: the above list matches your top 10 list 9 out of 10.

As if the housing costs have a significant impact on homelessness in those places. An addict, a person with mental issues, etc can afford a 1000 dollar rent. You know very well that's not at play here.

In Miami, close to home, you got homelessness too, the difference is they aren't on every sidewalk or in front of businesses as many of the other cities you mention. Probably because they enforce the law and prohibit homeless to do that. In Miami you got a Republican mayor, probably that's why.

People that can't afford CA prices just leave CA completely, as they have done, not become part of the homeless population voluntarily.

As for Denver, was there last January, I noticed this too, and the amount of businesses burned during the summer riots too.

So where do homeless people in Miami go?.

In some cases, it convinces people not to have that seventh hit of crack, and pay rent instead. Homelessness generally isn't a shortage of money. There is usually a behavioral disorder in play. If we tolerate all misbehavior, we have a really terrible culture.

LCDFlight wrote:

In some cases, it convinces people not to have that seventh hit of crack, and pay rent instead.

This statement demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of addiction medicine. I would suggest devoting as much time reading up on that as criminology.

https://www.mentalhelp.net/addiction/wh ... they-stop/

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ ... sing-drugs

https://greatoaksrecovery.com/addicts-cant-just-stop/

LCDFlight wrote:

Homelessness generally isn't a shortage of money.

Claimed as a generality, this statement is demonstrably false. In this survey report from Deloitte, the primary factors are:

- Poverty
- Income relative to housing cost
- Unexpected events among persons living paycheck to paycheck
- Substance abuse
- Domestic violence
- Single parenthood

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insight ... omies.html

Everything in the above list can correlate with a shortage of money, including side effects of substance abuse.

Poverty and the rest of your list is heavily related to bad decisions from the individuals and parents. Stay in school, wait to get married and have children and middle class isn’t hard to achieve. Born poor in the US is unfortunate circumstance, living that way is criminal negligence. There are millions of infilled jobs, NYT reported yesterday that the infrastructure bill might pass but we will lack workers to make it happen.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brooki ... class/amp/

As to the 9th Court’s decision, typical silliness—individuals aren’t responsible, so they get to live on the street. As Twain said, “the World doesn’t you a thing, it was here first.”

The interesting aspect is that the US isn't even the most affected country in the developed world when it comes to homelessness.

New Zealand, Germany, Australia, France, Luxembourg and Sweden all have a higher rate of homeless people than the US, yet they are nowhere near as dominant on the streets as their US counterparts. And the explanation is very, very simple: Those countries have a social safety net, which ensures that food, water and shelters are provided for the vast majority of their homeless. The US? Each man for himself, and if you can't hack it you're a loser.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

...the rest of your list is heavily related to bad decisions from the individuals and parents.

This statement feels a bit flippant - can you expand a bit on how 'bad decisions' are the substantive cause of job loss, lack of a savings cushion, DV, etc? Not everyone has the background and life experience of you or I to easily avoid such things. And I'm certainly not going to tell a single mother I don't know that it's 100% on her that the guy ran off or died.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Stay in school

Not always this simple as some schools in low income areas are not accredited. Also it can be hard to stay focused on studies if there are high stress levels in the household and/or community - that's just basic psychology.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Born poor in the US is unfortunate circumstance, living that way is criminal negligence.

Can you please cite the statute that declares it as such?

As for infilled jobs, are the contents of this post also your message to all of the rust belt poor who have been decrying their economic prospects the last 20 years?

"There are many, many, many factors about homeless people."

Claimed as a generality, this statement is demonstrably false. In this survey report from Deloitte, the primary factors are:

- Poverty
- Income relative to housing cost
- Unexpected events among persons living paycheck to paycheck
- Substance abuse
- Domestic violence
- Single parenthood

I can tell you the #1 reason why a person may be homeless. Believe it or not - by choice. Most people are Homeless by choice.

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." ~ Will Rodgers

So we have a 200,000 more poor people each month at the border.https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... year-high/
We have no penalties for having children you can't support.
We allow the decimation of entire US industries because the free market says the low cost (i.e. China) producer wins.
We supply narcan but do little to break the cycle.

Perhaps only the Chinese Communist Party model works.

dc10lover wrote:

"There are many, many, many factors about homeless people."

I can tell you the #1 reason why a person may be homeless. Believe it or not- by choice.

Based on what...exactly?

You might be interested to find how intricately the Pareto principle applies to homelessness:

https://andrewhening.medium.com/is-home ... 6fcb57bd03

In business, 80% of sales come from 20% of clients. 20% of criminals commit 80% of crimes. 20% of drivers cause 80% of all traffic accidents.
To be clear, it doesn’t have to be a perfect 80/20 to see the relationship. When we look at statistics on wealth and income inequality, we find that 10% of Americans own 84% of all stocks. 25% of workers in this country earn 68% of the total income. The top 20% of Americans own 86% of all wealth.

The 80/20 rule applies to homelessness too. The vast majority of people who become homeless are able to quickly resolve their situation with minimal public assistance. On the other hand, a small minority, people who experience chronic homelessness, are not able to self-resolve their situation and, in the process, end up having a hugely disproportionate impact on the community.

As for your statement in general, it's the kind of misinformation that needs to be nipped in the bud if we ever want to get serious about solving the problem.

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/disman ... ess-choice

This myth enables apathy and maintains the nation’s status quo of too many people experiencing homelessness in an urgent affordable housing crisis.

On any given night in the US, about 550,000 people experience homelessness, and almost 89,000 are chronically homeless (PDF). Sometimes they sleep in shelters, if a bed is available. But they may avoid shelters because of bed bugs, high rates of violence, or policies that prevent them from bringing their personal items or pets with them. Shelters may require sobriety or engagement in services. And couples are often split up when entering shelter, so some avoid it to stay together.

Almost 200,000 people live unsheltered (PDF) in the US. Many times, people sleep outside because it is simply their best option. This doesn’t mean they are choosing to be homeless. It means they don’t have a lot of other choices.

"Almost 200,000 people live unsheltered (PDF) in the US"

There are way more than 200,000 homeless people living on the street just in California. Homeless people are from all over the Country even from other Countries. Unless you are homeless, you do not know what really is going on - on the streets.

dc10lover wrote:

"Almost 200,000 people live unsheltered (PDF) in the US"

There are way more than 200,000 homeless people living on the street just in California. Homeless people are from all over the Country even from other Countries. Unless you are homeless, you do not know what really is going on - on the streets.

Discussing the actual numbers is pointless until a practical rubric is established that all state and local governments use. But the numbers weren't the point, thanks.

"As for your statement in general, it's the kind of misinformation that needs to be nipped in the bud if we ever want to get serious about solving the problem"

"Homeless by choice"

"Based on what...exactly?"

I have talked to people and people have told me this. I am not giving out misinformation.

Aaron747 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

"Almost 200,000 people live unsheltered (PDF) in the US"

There are way more than 200,000 homeless people living on the street just in California. Homeless people are from all over the Country even from other Countries. Unless you are homeless, you do not know what really is going on - on the streets.

Discussing the actual numbers is pointless until a practical rubric is established that all state and local governments use. But the numbers weren't the point, thanks.

There is no way to count how many people are Homeless. People hit the streets while other people get off the streets- it fluctuates greatly. You will never solve this "problem".

dc10lover wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

"Almost 200,000 people live unsheltered (PDF) in the US"

There are way more than 200,000 homeless people living on the street just in California. Homeless people are from all over the Country even from other Countries. Unless you are homeless, you do not know what really is going on - on the streets.

Discussing the actual numbers is pointless until a practical rubric is established that all state and local governments use. But the numbers weren't the point, thanks.

There is no way to count how many people are Homeless. People hit the streets while other people get off the streets- it fluctuates greatly. You will never solve this "problem".

That is true, but the transitions people are making aren't the 'problem', it's the how and why.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

...the rest of your list is heavily related to bad decisions from the individuals and parents.

This statement feels a bit flippant - can you expand a bit on how 'bad decisions' are the substantive cause of job loss, lack of a savings cushion, DV, etc? Not everyone has the background and life experience of you or I to easily avoid such things. And I'm certainly not going to tell a single mother I don't know that it's 100% on her that the guy ran off or died.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Stay in school

Not always this simple as some schools in low income areas are not accredited. Also it can be hard to stay focused on studies if there are high stress levels in the household and/or community - that's just basic psychology.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Born poor in the US is unfortunate circumstance, living that way is criminal negligence.

Can you please cite the statute that declares it as such?

As for infilled jobs, are the contents of this post also your message to all of the rust belt poor who have been decrying their economic prospects the last 20 years?

Go back and read the Brookings article, they’re hardly a right-wing wacko group. The path is simple in outline, but hard to follow. There’s no statute, it negligence on the part of those who don’t follow the rules to success. Lots of the white rust belt poor are happy being on the margins of society, I guess. But, if they moved rather than waiting around for political grifters like Trump and Biden to bring back coal mining and hand out of EBT cards, that’s what you get.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

...the rest of your list is heavily related to bad decisions from the individuals and parents.

This statement feels a bit flippant - can you expand a bit on how 'bad decisions' are the substantive cause of job loss, lack of a savings cushion, DV, etc? Not everyone has the background and life experience of you or I to easily avoid such things. And I'm certainly not going to tell a single mother I don't know that it's 100% on her that the guy ran off or died.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Stay in school

Not always this simple as some schools in low income areas are not accredited. Also it can be hard to stay focused on studies if there are high stress levels in the household and/or community - that's just basic psychology.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Born poor in the US is unfortunate circumstance, living that way is criminal negligence.

Can you please cite the statute that declares it as such?

As for infilled jobs, are the contents of this post also your message to all of the rust belt poor who have been decrying their economic prospects the last 20 years?

Go back and read the Brookings article, they’re hardly a right-wing wacko group. The path is simple in outline, but hard to follow. There’s no statute, it negligence on the part of those who don’t follow the rules to success. Lots of the white rust belt poor are happy being on the margins of society, I guess. But, if they moved rather than waiting around for political grifters like Trump and Biden to bring back coal mining and hand out of EBT cards, that’s what you get.

Regular 'ol negligence now, instead of criminal negligence. I suppose that's progress

Aaron747.. the disagreement you and I have is that I believe adults can be expected to meet adult responsibilities. I believe you are infantilizing every street character and claiming you can “fix” their problem with government support. The record on such programs is atrocious, rife with unintended consequent tragedy. I call it intergenerational strategic poverty. An able bodied, mentally competent person needs and deserves no assistance. They should be paying taxes in!

We have it unbelievably easy in the US. If you can fog a mirror in the US, you will outearn a lawyer, doctor or scientist in almost any other country. But how will your behaviors compare? If society allows people to behave like slobs, and does not regulate human behavior in any way, obviously people are going to take full advantage to do whatever silly thing pops into their mind. If consequences don’t matter and there are no laws.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747.. the disagreement you and I have is that I believe adults can be expected to meet adult responsibilities. I believe you are infantilizing every street character and claiming you can “fix” their problem with government support. The record on such programs is atrocious, rife with unintended consequent tragedy. I call it intergenerational strategic poverty. An able bodied, mentally competent person needs and deserves no assistance. They should be paying taxes in!

We have it unbelievably easy in the US. If you can fog a mirror in the US, you will outearn a lawyer, doctor or scientist in almost any other country. But how will your behaviors compare? If society allows people to behave like slobs, and does not regulate human behavior in any way, obviously people are going to take full advantage to do whatever silly thing pops into their mind. If consequences don’t matter and there are no laws.

I have not stated a single solution or government program I advocate for in this thread. All of my responses regard the characterizations and lack of nuance that often accompany this complex issue. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I did say earlier was that given there are a lot of people on the street who are not of sound mind to make decisions for themselves, we need to have a major nationwide discussion about what personhood and freedom of mobility mean in that context going forward.

On a side note it's a bit disingenuous economically to mention that some blue collar workers in the US outearn professionals in other countries. That is true but only on a dollar per dollar basis - such a comparison is useless without the broader scope of COL and PPP.

dc10lover wrote:

"As for your statement in general, it's the kind of misinformation that needs to be nipped in the bud if we ever want to get serious about solving the problem"

"Homeless by choice"

"Based on what...exactly?"

I have talked to people and people have told me this. I am not giving out misinformation.

How big was the sample of you “talking to people”. Was it up around 200,000?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." ~ Will Rodgers

So we have a 200,000 more poor people each month at the border.https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... year-high/
We have no penalties for having children you can't support.
We allow the decimation of entire US industries because the free market says the low cost (i.e. China) producer wins.
We supply narcan but do little to break the cycle.

Perhaps only the Chinese Communist Party model works.

Forced labor for little or no wage?

How many of those people arriving at the border are educated and escaping gang and drug violence?
How many women are raped?
How many American companies are given huge payouts for moving factories?
How many times are drug addicts given resources to break their cycle of addiction?

The answers will surprise you if you are willing to jump right to forced labor...