51–52 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Progressive capture of most institutions makes a lot of research questionable in this particular world of ideas.
This one seems like a pretty simple question to answer: randomly poll 100 homeless people and ask whether they become homeless in California or came there homeless from elsewhere. Not hard, not complicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rental market didn’t cause the homelessness. Most homeless people weren’t renting in SF before they got homeless. These are the people who just gave up in leave. Has nothing to do with rent prices or housing prices. Truth is, SF is attractive to homeless people because it has nice weather all year round and the politicians tolerate them.
How do you know that? Research usually suggests that the most important factor in homelessness is unaffordable housing.
Even if you give them free housing, they'll mess it up somehow. They can't hold down a job. They don't take care of the home. They'll abuse the home until it's unlivable.
If it's truly unaffordable housing, why the hell are they in SF? Go to somewhere that is 1/4th the price. Plenty of places in the US.
Source: Lived in SF for 20+ years.