I can maybe understand the premise that fewer houses means more homelessness. Although I'm skeptical that it's a direct cause, and undoubtedly many homeless people in SF did not become homeless in SF, but migrated there after they lost their home or became addicted elsewhere.
It's a commonly promoted trope to blame all of SF's problems on wealth inequality and the housing market. But it could be an oversimplification that hand-waves a difficult discussion, which only ends up exacerbating the problem.
Can you articulate how housing policy leads to drug addiction, open air drug markets, high rates of property crime, and general non-enforcement of criminality?
You're skeptical housing shortages cause homelessness? How could it be otherwise?
To address your question, it's incredibly difficult to cope with mental illness or overcome addiction while homeless. It's also difficult to hold down a job. Drug use and joblessness lead to property crime and open air drug markets.
> You're skeptical housing shortages cause homelessness? How could it be otherwise?
Well, people could become homeless outside of San Francisco (possibly after becoming addicted to drugs), and then migrate to San Francisco. Even in the hypothetical scenario where houses cost nothing but are unavailable in San Francisco, it would seem misleading to blame that SF housing shortage for the homelessness of someone who migrated there after becoming homeless.
Is there data available for how many people currently homeless in San Francisco became homeless in San Francisco? That is, where did they last rent property? I'm not being snarky; I'm curious what the percentages are like. My guess is that a significant majority of homeless people in San Francisco were previously renting in another location, then got evicted, and then eventually moved to SF.
> it's incredibly difficult to cope with mental illness or overcome addiction while homeless. It's also difficult to hold down a job.
Yes, that's true, once you're homeless. My question is about how the housing shortage in San Francisco causes homelessness. That is, how does housing policy in a jurisdiction lead to people becoming homeless after they were previously living in a property within that jurisdiction?
Also, consider what might make a city an appealing destination for someone who becomes homeless while addicted to drugs. If your heroin addiction gets you kicked out of your apartment in Reno, and you're looking to score some smack, why not catch a $15 Greyhound to San Francisco? It's an easy place to buy drugs, and it's a city well known for its citizens and authorities tolerating people openly using drugs and sleeping on the street. And when you run out of money, you can smash a few car windows until you find some cash, then walk a few blocks to exchange it for drugs from your nearest heroin dealer.
A 2019 survey found that 70% of people homeless in San Francisco in 2019 reported most recently becoming homeless while living in San Francisco: 22% came from another county within California, and 8% came from another state[1].
Housing policy decreases supply which increases costs beyond the means of low-wage workers.
Interesting, thanks for the link. I have to admit, 70% is a lot higher than I would have guessed. Here's the cited survey (PDF) [0] which has a lot of well-presented data.
Some other interesting points I noticed:
> Nearly half (48%) of youth survey respondents reported living in San Francisco when they most recently became homeless. Thirty-nine percent (39%) reported living in another county in California and 14% reported living out of state.
So 53% of youth respondents became homeless outside of San Francisco, compared to only 30% of overall respondents. This skew possibly indicates a trend of younger people becoming homeless outside of San Francisco and moving there. That also implies the number of homeless people in San Francisco will continue to increase.
> Previous living arrangements: 30% Home Owned or Rented by Self or Partner, 33% With Friends or Family.
This implies there's a gradual transition to homelessness. Maybe there's a chance for early intervention when someone starts living with friends or family.
> Primary Cause of Homelessness (Self-reported): 25% Lost Job, 18% Alcohol or Drug Use, 13% Eviction
Unfortunately it's hard to separate these causes, since e.g. alcohol or drug use can lead to lost job. But again, 18% citing drug use is lower than I would have expected. I wonder how many non-addicts become addicts while homeless.
The logical consequence of this argument is for San Francisco to secede from the Union and build a wall around the city to stop foreign homeless people from coming in. And blowing up BART too.
Alternatively, the SFPD could start arresting people for committing crimes, the DA could start charging them for crimes, and the judges could start sentencing them for crimes. And the legislators can make sleeping on the street a crime. Make it impossible to get drugs without significant risk. Discourage drug addicts from immigrating to SF as if it's some kind of heroin haven where they can live, sleep, shit and do drugs on the street.
Or just let the inevitable earthquake take care of it.
The Supreme Court ruled that you can't criminalize sleeping on the street if there isn't shelter space available, so your dystopia in which people are jailed for existing in proximity to you without being rich isn't going to happen.
This is the simple and obvious solution that works but for some reason liberalism post-Clinton took a shift towards being not just less pro law and order, but actively anti.
Housing is certainly an ingredient in the soup. So is inequality. And corruption. A culture that is anti-family, consumerist, pro-drug, individualist.
What else? There's so many factors. A lack of cohesive identity. The American attitude of narcissism and the fuck-you mentality. A lack of willingness to call out ghetto behavior as bad. Neutered teachers and schools preaching that all things are equally good and gradually lowering standards. Entire generations of families that basically feed into gangs. A lack of government ability/will to break up gangs. Incessant, unmitigated advertising. Government controlled media serving white-washed bullshit. Liberalism gone off the rails, generally.
It's a commonly promoted trope to blame all of SF's problems on wealth inequality and the housing market. But it could be an oversimplification that hand-waves a difficult discussion, which only ends up exacerbating the problem.
Can you articulate how housing policy leads to drug addiction, open air drug markets, high rates of property crime, and general non-enforcement of criminality?