If you talk to homeless people (at least in Seattle), you'll find that almost all of those you speak with moved here from elsewhere. Bad data is worse than no data, and these surveys are bad data intended to skew the conversation - they have a very obvious flaw, which is that there is no verification of the identity of homeless people and where they lived before. And when most people around you have the same anecdotal observations and the data says otherwise, it is yet another sign the data needs to be scrutinized or tossed out until something better comes along.
> If not, why should we believe that it happens with any degree of frequency?
Why should we believe they are from here by default? We should assume they are not until it is proven, and therefore feel no obligation to create more levies against local law-abiding tax-paying residents to support out-of-town homeless, or permanently nomadic lifestyles, or willful drug abusers who often commit petty property crimes to feed their addictions. We should only provide that aid if we know they are long-term residents of the area, and otherwise enforce laws against them strictly.
> It may be that it only seems like there are more of them because they are more visible because besides SF's dislike of building housing
I'm sorry but if someone moved to SF or Seattle within the last 7 years, they really should have displayed more personal responsibility and known what they're signing up for cost-wise and whether they can afford it. These are some of the most desirable places to live on the planet, and are rightfully expensive. The cities are not obligated to change their character or density to accommodate others who want to move there but can't afford it, just like I don't have a default right to live on the beach in Maui. And as such, I feel these cities don't have to do anything other than enforce the law except when someone is a proven long-term resident who was swept up in increasing costs.
> If not, why should we believe that it happens with any degree of frequency?
Why should we believe they are from here by default? We should assume they are not until it is proven, and therefore feel no obligation to create more levies against local law-abiding tax-paying residents to support out-of-town homeless, or permanently nomadic lifestyles, or willful drug abusers who often commit petty property crimes to feed their addictions. We should only provide that aid if we know they are long-term residents of the area, and otherwise enforce laws against them strictly.
> It may be that it only seems like there are more of them because they are more visible because besides SF's dislike of building housing
I'm sorry but if someone moved to SF or Seattle within the last 7 years, they really should have displayed more personal responsibility and known what they're signing up for cost-wise and whether they can afford it. These are some of the most desirable places to live on the planet, and are rightfully expensive. The cities are not obligated to change their character or density to accommodate others who want to move there but can't afford it, just like I don't have a default right to live on the beach in Maui. And as such, I feel these cities don't have to do anything other than enforce the law except when someone is a proven long-term resident who was swept up in increasing costs.
reply