
Climate and Unsheltered Homeless in the Continental United States - dredmorbius
https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2019/10/climate-and-unsheltered-homeless-in.html
======
brudgers
Not a statistical analysis, but my intuition is homelessness in general
correlates with how easy it is to go someplace better. From Orlando, $100 gas
money provides a lot of options. From Vegas, not so many. From San Francisco,
$100 of gas might not even get you to the state line. Even if it does, there's
not anything better there and not anything better on the way.

San Francisco is a local minima/maxima. Vegas has more diversity of options
within 600 miles. Orlando is just another place in the east. Consistent with
my intuition/hypothesis, the report says Hawaii has a much higher than
predicted unhoused homeless population. Objectively you can't get anywhere
better/different with $100.

~~~
dgaudet
i'm not sure i agree.

$100 of gas gets you about 24 gallons at california average prices, even at
20mpg that's 2x what you need to get to reno (218mi), on the way to reno you
travel through sacramento. there are alternately many other central valley
options at less distance from SF (from which many uber/lyft drivers commute to
SF for their day -- for example stockton, modesto). redding is also 217mi from
SF if you want to go north instead. eureka is only 271mi. grants pass OR, and
los angeles are both in the 380mi ballpark, still within the $100 budget.

i'm not sure why you think vegas has a wider diversity of options -- it could
be i don't understand your criteria for options. vegas is central in a vast
amount of desert. it's 271mi to LA, 286mi to bakersfield, 302mi to phoenix and
421mi to salt lake city. a massive amount of NV north/northwest of vegas is
off-limits military test range -- population density is extremely thin in most
directions from vegas.

sources: gmaps for distances, and AAA for gas price
([https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=CA](https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=CA)) i
rounded up to $4.20/gal. 20mpg i picked semi-arbitrarily because i didn't find
a good hit in the first search i did.

~~~
dredmorbius
The eastern US has numerous major metro regions within an hour or two's travel
from one another, where "major" is 1-2 million or more in population.

The west coast largely doesn't, and the intermountain and west plains region
is far less populated still. See:

[http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/pop...](http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/population-density-map-united-states.jpg)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas)

Dense population centres as vertical relief:

[https://i.imgur.com/a8tsVUP_d.jpg?maxwidth=1024&shape=thumb&...](https://i.imgur.com/a8tsVUP_d.jpg?maxwidth=1024&shape=thumb&fidelity=high)

The "whys" of this are interesting, though I suspect much of this revolves
around water and transport. How much it affects homeless populations is an
interesting question as well.

The climactic factors Doreen mentions are undoubtedly a factor, though I
suspect the ease/difficulty in finding nontraditional means of support (odd
jobs, busking, panhandling, gig work) likely matter. The options for other
than traditional single-family and long-term apartment dwelling, and the
relative costs of mortgages and rent also undoubtedly matter, as does the
ability to get too and from residence, work, and/or services.

My experiences travelling through the US are:

1\. The changes in density are hugely apparent, with the almost wholly
unpopulated region between California's central valley and the eastern front
of the Rockies being most pronounced. There are marked transitions at, say,
SF, the 9 bay counties region, Sacramento, Reno, excepting Salt Lake /
Wasastch next Denver / Front Range, Omaha, Chicago, and then points east. The
density of development along the East Coast, from Boston well into Virginia is
hard to appreciate for those who are only familiar with California. And even
more rural regions east of the Mississippi and well through the South are far
more developed than most of California is. The stretch of CA-99 from Roseville
to Bakersfield being only slighly comparable -- it's a linear belt whereas
through the Eastern US you'll find comparable or higher densities in all
directions.

From San Francisco, for two hours' travel, you have ... more or less two
destinations: Sacramento or Stockton. Going north or south, there's nothing
until Portland, OR, or Los Angeles. And once you pass Sacramento, there's
_very_ slim pickings until you cross the Rockies, or better, the Missouri or
Mississippi rivers, which is at best _days_ travel by car or bus. And once you
arrive, options may be few and attitudes not particularly welcoming.

2\. Density alone isn't vitality. There are relatively habited regions which
offer little economic opportunity. That's pointedly obvious as you travel
through the Mississippi Delta region, much of Arkansas, and old rust-belt
regions of Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Even with density and clement
weather, and despite low costs, support is scarce.

The feel of regions that _do_ have some level of wealth or at least money
flows is _palpable_. Aspen, CO, Seattle, WA, and Menlo Park, CA have
tremendously different feels than Clinton, IA, St. Louis, MO, or Gallup, NM.
Even attractive tourist-based regions often seem to have an edge of concern
based on a mix of past indigenous sources of wealth (often mining and timber)
now gone and a fear for what happens when the travel fad fades. What passes
for generally vibrant in most of the US would be considered strongly depressed
in much of California, where the distinctions between even thriving core and
outlying regions of the SF Bay Area are severe.

3\. Local attitudes matter. Homeless, housing-challenged, car- or van-
dwellers, and the like, are more evident where support and services exist, all
else being equal. Over the past few decades, I'd say they're more evident
_generally_ , and aren't strictly limited to the west or even coastal regions
generally.

4\. Much of coastal California, as well as the central valley, has and has
long had its homeless or transient populations. I strongly recommend
Steinbeck's _Grapes of Wrath_ as a backgrounder.

The question of _why_ homelessness suddenly emerged in the late 1970s / early
1980s is one that's interested me. I've had an occasional correspondence with
Doreen since replying to a comment of hers on HN about a year ago based on
some research I'd done on the question at the time. How much of the phenomenon
is simply nomenclature and semantics, and how much is an increase in the
number / visibility of the unhoused, is something I still don't have a good
handle on myself, though I do strongly suspect the problem is getting worse.
Failing to offer options _other_ than detached single-family dwellings or
rabbit-hutch apartments or housing tower blocks seems another. There really
ought be a sensible middle range. There isn't.

Doreen has been advocating for SROs as at least a partial solution. She may be
right on this, though I see it as at best only a partial element. Co-housing,
intentional communities, boarding, and other options may also be useful. As
well as a widely implemented land value tax.

Treating housing and real estate as financial assets rather than essential
societal services seems to me a very strong component.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18499697](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18499697)

That last element turns up in another item I've found fascinating, a 1937
analysis of resistances to technological innovations which includes among
other sectors housing, by Berhnard J. Stern:

[https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag...](https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/page/39)
(Markdown copy:
[https://pastebin.com/raw/Bapu75is](https://pastebin.com/raw/Bapu75is))

My attention had been first brought to that by Stern's research assistant for
the project, a young Columbia University graduate student named Isaac Asimov.

There are a whole slew of valuable lessons from that piece. I've submitted it
a few times to HN though discussion's been light to date.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20532443](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20532443)

All told, though, this is a problem that's proved stubbornly resistant to
technological (or any other) solutions attempted to date, and for which
awareness and understanding are at best limited. Doreen has direct experience
(I really don't), and her criticism of what I'd seen as a generally sensible
and surprisingly sympathetic White House white paper is cogent.

~~~
majos
> The question of why homelessness suddenly emerged in the late 1970s / early
> 1980s is one that's interested me.

My understanding is that deinstitutionalization plays a large role here. The
US institutionalized about 500k people nationwide until 1965, when that number
cratered to about 100k by 1980 [1]. Not everyone who is released this way ends
up homeless, but a recent study in Massachusetts in Ohio found that about a
third of people released from mental institutions have no known address within
six months [2].

You seem to have thought a lot about this topic, what is your take on the role
of deinstitutionalization? Institutionalization seems cruel, but our current
system pushes many people with severe mental illnesses onto the streets or
into prisons, which seems worse.

[1] [http://bpr.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Mental-
Ho...](http://bpr.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Mental-Hospital-
Numbers-300x290.gif)

[2] [https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/fixing-the-
system/fe...](https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/fixing-the-
system/features-and-news/2596-how-many-people-with-serious-mental-illness-are-
homeless)

~~~
brudgers
Denstitutionalization had a significant impact on the demographic composition
of the homeless population. But urban renewal in the years following the
Second World War reduced the stock of cheap housing. Single room occupancy and
boarding houses became rare. In many places they became extinct.

The quality of housing at the left of a price histogram became higher. But so
did its minimum cost. There's less transient and temporary housing. The
overall population is larger. Hope VI continued the removal of the least
expensive housing under the rubric of urban renewal policy right up to the
twenty-first century.

~~~
DoreenMichele
This is a huge part of the problem. I've been researching the history of US
housing for at least two decades at this point and I feel clear that this is a
consequence of WW2, post-war prosperity and the existence of the Baby Boom
generation that mostly grew up with unprecedented wealth, didn't need cheap
housing and essentially imposed it's ideas of "minimal, acceptable housing" on
the nation as a whole.

Then demographic and economic reality changed, but we've been both reluctant
to rebuild the cheaper accommodations that got demolished and we face serious
logistical barriers to recreating such. Cheap housing tends to be _older_
housing. New construction is generally built for the middle class or the
wealthy. Poor people don't finance new construction.

So we currently have a huge shortage of housing that works for lower income
people. It's not just a factor of rent price per se. We also have created a
situation where most Americans cannot live without a car, which is de facto
another substantial financial burden and logistical barrier for anyone with
physical barriers to being able to drive. On top of that, we just straight up
do not have a lot of decent housing options for anyone who prefers a smaller
home for some reason.

I'm still trying to figure out out how to document and communicate the shape
and extent of the housing problem. Using the term "affordable housing" fails
to be helpful in talking about the issue. In fact, it's counterproductive.

But the huge loss of entry-level housing is a large part of this problem space
and the period of its active destruction coincides with the findings by
dredmorbius that at some point our terminology changed in a way that suggests
the issue of homelessness fundamentally changed such that it is inherently
more serious, problematic, chronic and long term.

~~~
brudgers
The stigmatization of poverty is an Anglo-American tradition going back at
least as far as the 1536 English Poor Laws.[1] Among it's intellectual
benefits is a convenient absence of necessary inconvenience upon the wealthy.

Stigmatization of poverty is not the only tradition at play in America. San
Francisco's namesake advocated poverty and homelessness. The city was
literally established by homeless men who lived in poverty.

The "affordable housing" problem limits solutions to those meeting some
criterion for "economically deserving." It precludes pursuit of universal
shelter security free of _relative_ political disability. Affordable housing
allows eviction from public housing when a family member is criminally
charged. Affordable housing allows assistance disqualification for past drug
offenses fully paid. Affordable housing is premised on scarcity not abundance.

At the macro-economic scale affordable housing has the delusional premise that
there's a housing market that exists in an independent way. The delusion that
there's a housing market that can reach equilibrium. Housing is not just one
among many alternatives for achieving returns on real-estate investment.

It's one of the worst because conversion of real-estate to housing is sticky.
Conversion of housing to more productive commercial, industrial, and
agricultural uses ranges from hard (rental trailer parks) to near impossible
(multiple single family fee simple lots). Politically, housing houses voters.
Economically, homeowners have an incentive to hold out during aggregation.

Real-estate investment is primarily a vehicle for preserving wealth. It's long
term. Cashing out is only rational when the returns are high. Cashing out into
housing only makes sense when the cash value of the housing at time of
delivery exceeds the potential long term value of other uses minus the
increased risk from liquidating a perpetual real property title into goods,
chattels, and/or financial instruments.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_laws)

~~~
DoreenMichele
Your use of the term "affordable housing" suggests you are talking about
government run poverty relief programs, aka The Projects. I am not. This is
one of the reasons it isn't useful terminology for my purposes.

I see our current homeless crisis as a crisis that emerged out of the success
of past generations, much like London burned to the ground because as big
cities finally emerged from a growing population, it wasn't obvious beforehand
that thatched roofs and the like would be a disastrous detail when building a
lot of housing under conditions of population density that had not been
previously seen.

I am aware that classism and other evils exist. I experienced classism first-
hand while homeless.

But I don't find it constructive to focus overly much on that and I don't feel
that framing is particularly accurate. I think the majority of the problem is
due to factors like blind spots on the part of the privileged.

In a case where you have a mix of root causes, it's generally better to focus
your effort on the more readily resolved pieces of the problem. When one of
those pieces is prejudice, addressing other pieces of the problem is an
effective means to combat prejudice.

Condemning people for their prejudice tends to entrench the problem, not
remedy it. Casting light on the fact that their assumptions are incorrect is
far more productive.

I believe that this problem exists not because most people in power actively
desire to be abusive assholes punishing the lower classes for existing but
because they don't have good answers. I think the best thing I can do is do
the research, figure out how to effectively communicate it and make it freely
available on the internet for anyone interested in the topic.

That still leaves me with an unresolved question of how to pay my own bills.
I'm off the street, but I still struggle to make ends meet. I'm currently
nearly broke and facing a week where I am likely to go hungry for a few days.

This is an all too common occurrence in my life. Ads are "dead" so to speak
and I don't know how to get enough tips and/or Patreon supporters to turn my
writing into a middle class income for me.

But other than the detail that it isn't paying enough, I feel pretty confident
that this model of _1\. Do the research and 2. Put out good info for free_ is
our best hope for finding a viable path forward on some of our current hard
problems.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion. Your comments have been
enormously helpful for me.

~~~
brudgers
Sorry for not being clear. I agree that "affordable housing" is not a
particularly useful starting point for addressing housing insecurity in a
meaningful way. I agree that it is a way of maintaining wealth and power.

I think in the context of homelessness, "affordable housing" is used to muddy
the waters. "Affordable housing" gets people off on the tangent of home
ownership and the American Dream expectations of FAANG engineers. And when
that connotation starts to gain traction, "affordable housing" can be used to
derail that conversation by bringing homelessness into the mix. No matter what
I mean, "affordable housing" has another meaning that can be used to derail my
point.

I am really glad you are writing what you are writing and sharing it on HN. It
makes Hacker News a better place.

My perspective on housing has developed over the thirty years since I studied
architectural drafting at vo-tech and later an MArch. I worked nearly
exclusively in housing from 2001 until just a few years ago. With and for
developers and homebuilders plus some time in government as a planner and
building plans examiner. I watched Hope VI go down in grad school. I worked on
some Tax Credit housing projects when I had an independent practice.

Anyway, if I can help, my email is in my profile. Thanks for making HN better.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_Anyway, if I can help, my email is in my profile._

Thanks.

I did write you about my latest project. If you don't see an email from me,
check your spam folder.

------
Pfhreak
We need to invest in proper public housing, pay for its upkeep, and avoid the
massive public skyrises that are so expensive to maintain.

We need to allow up zoning and get rid of detached single family only zones.

Heck, I'm all for fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical -
but the incentives for buying and building housing today don't align with
housing the most people in the best conditions possible.

~~~
roenxi
> fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical - but the
> incentives for buying and building housing today don't align

The incentives for commodity housing are to build more if the price is high.
There aren't a lot of incentive structures that improve on that.

The only alternative that doesn't have strictly worse incentives are if the
government builds and assigns all housing. I'd bet that turns out to be worse
in practice, but if it has ever worked out anywhere ever I'd be interested in
the case study.

It would be a much better idea to stick to non-radical things like tweaking
the zoning so developers aren't banned from building things.

~~~
sanxiyn
> The only alternative that doesn't have strictly worse incentives are if the
> government builds and assigns all housing. I'd bet that turns out to be
> worse in practice, but if it has ever worked out anywhere ever I'd be
> interested in the case study.

This is how Singapore works. It has been working great there.

~~~
roenxi
I'll read up on it, but it wouldn't surprise me if Singapore had more land
devoted to urban development than they do countryside.

Their policies aren't going to be optimising for general welfare as much as
they are working around the fact that they have no land to play with when
compared to anyone else. Their system looks like it makes sense for those
conditions, but it would be a massive burden elsewhere. Look at the complexity
of their quota system, for example [0]. So people are not going to be living
where they want and everyone is going to be in the same part of the city
anyway because Singapore is small - I could walk the long edge of their land
in a single day.

So basically, point taken that it works for Singapore. But Singapore is facing
unique geographical constraints and it probably causes a lot of pain in
practice that we don't hear about [1]. under normal conditions it would be far
cheaper and easier just to build some high density government housing rather
than trying to decommoditise. I expect it will turn out that nobody with
alternatives should try to copy that aspect of Singapore.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore#Re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore#Resale_flats)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index)
\- See Singapore, entry 151 of 180

------
planetzero
We should be focusing on getting mental health treatment for many of these
homeless people instead of focusing on the fact that they have no home.

Mental health is usually the root of the problem. Many homeless people had
jobs, homes, families that would take care of them and now that's all gone
because they can no longer hold down a job, are usually on drugs, and family
can't or won't deal with their behavior any longer.

~~~
DoreenMichele
No, mental health issues really are not a direct cause of homelessness per se.
That narrative is popular because it's a convenient way to paint homelessness
as a personal problem that is the fault of the homeless individual. It's a
convenient means to wash our collective hands of the responsibility of
addressing societal factors, such as national housing policy and how that
strangles the availability of low cost housing that works without owning a
car.

We say homeless people are all "junkies and crazies" and blame their lack of
housing on them. Meanwhile, there are junkie millionaire musicians and actors.
We don't use their existence as an excuse to conclude "drug addiction leads to
wealth!"

I get told over and over again that housing costs aren't a factor in
homelessness at all. In reality, it's a known and proven factor, but it's one
that doesn't feed the narrative that homelessness is fundamentally an
individual problem rather than a systemic societal problem.

~~~
planetzero
"No, mental health issues really are not a direct cause of homelessness per
se."

So how do you explain people that make a good living to living in a box by the
railroad tracks if not some sort of mental illness? It has nothing to do with
the cost or availability of housing. If the rent gets too high, a person not
mentally ill would just move to a more affordable city/part of the city rather
than live on the streets.

"We say homeless people are all "junkies and crazies" and blame their lack of
housing on them"

Giving someone a house that can't even feed themselves won't fix the problem.

"Meanwhile, there are junkie millionaire musicians and actors. We don't use
their existence as an excuse to conclude "drug addiction leads to wealth!"

Why would we? Most drug addicts aren't wealthy. Wealthy people are sometimes
drug addicts. That's a ridiculous argument.

"it's a known and proven factor, but it's one that doesn't feed the narrative
that homelessness is fundamentally an individual problem rather than a
systemic societal problem."

It is a systemic problem. Cities like San Francisco won't address the problem
with mental illness and they have laws in place that allow homeless people to
shit and piss in the streets with impunity.

There are tons of shelters in and around the city (and most big cities), but
most won't go because they won't be able to get drunk or high.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_Giving someone a house that can 't even feed themselves won't fix the
problem._

I am not for a Housing First model. I'm for increasing the availability of
market based housing that makes sense for small households (1-3 people) who
may not have/want a car.

 _Most drug addicts aren 't wealthy._

Drugs cost money. Taking enough drugs to qualify for a label of _addict_ isn't
cheap. Some drug addicts manage the high cost of addiction by becoming
dealers.

But the addicts and alcoholics I've personally known were pretty comfortably
well off. Seriously poor people with very low incomes simply can't afford to
stay drunk or high. They don't have enough money to buy that much booze or
drugs on a consistent basis.

 _There are tons of shelters in and around the city (and most big cities), but
most won 't go because they won't be able to get drunk or high._

I neither drink nor do drugs. I was homeless for nearly six years. I never
stayed in a homeless shelter because they are often basically a cross between
a prison and a shit hole.

They have mold problems, theft problems, highly constraining rules that middle
class would not accept to get housing themselves (such as curfews), etc.

Yes, cities like San Francisco that are trying to not be monstrously
uncompassionate and trying to avoid the evils of criminalizing poverty are all
too often doing things that don't actually resolve the issue and tend to help
entrench it.

I'm the author of the piece under discussion. Before I was homeless, I was
studying to become an urban planner.

I've researched this problem space for at least two decades. I'm trying to
come up with actual solutions that can help make a real difference.

Some of the things I would like to see:

1\. More SROs and Missing Middle housing.

2\. More walkable and bike-friendly communities and better public transit so
cars stop being a necessity in the US and lack of a car stops being a huge
barrier to having a middle class life at all.

3\. More flexible employment for people who don't fit in to "regular jobs" and
better programs for helping such "misfits" find employment that makes sense
for them.

4\. A real solution to America's health care issues which are a huge financial
burden for far too many people and a factor that helps push some people out
into the street.

------
oh_sigh
Why does it seem like the author has an oozing derision for the "chronically
housed"? Presumably the goal of any homeless program is to make those people
also into chronically housed?

~~~
rossdavidh
Just a guess: being subject to oozing derision _from_ the chronically housed,
makes it emotionally difficult not to respond in kind.

------
Merrill
Unsheltered, unclothed humans are pretty much limited to south of the Line of
Palms. Living north of the Line of Palms requires either or both clothing and
shelter. With effective clothing, minimal shelter is needed until conditions
become quite severe. The military has experience with this, such as having men
survive with rudimentary shelter outdoors through a Korean winter. Besides
clothing and shelter, diet is important, and people who work outdoors in
severe climates burn a lot of calories.

~~~
vidanay
What latitude is "Line of Palms?" I've never heard that term, and a Google
search led nowhere.

~~~
dredmorbius
The latitude varies with specific location, as temperature ranges vary
considerably at different longitudes. It's much further north in Western
Europe than in Eastern North America, for example.

~~~
dredmorbius
Update: generally 44 N/S, maximum, though most palms are native to tropical
regions.

