First: the west-coast homeless population is overwhelmingly indigenous, consisting of people who had (and mostly will again) stable housing in the region before experiencing homelessness.
Secondly: the much more salient reason the midwest sees less homelessness is that housing is much, much more affordable here. The homeless in the midwest leave homelessness, for apartments; they don't leave the region to be homeless elsewhere.
Third: there are huge numbers of homeless people in Chicago. Chicago is drastically bigger than Portland or San Francisco, where the homeless problem is more visible. Drive down Chicago Ave through Humboldt Park. People don't erect tent cities in the middle of San Francisco as a political statement; there just isn't anywhere else to put them. Chicago doesn't have that problem.
I've never been to Seattle but it wouldn't surprise me if, in general, the homeless tend to congregate in or near major train stations. They're open 24/7; they're warm; the opportunities for panhandling are good (because of the number of people passing through).
No it is not. This is incredibly easy to see by just visiting different cities. Northern cities like chicago and minneapolis have very small homeless populations. Its not because no one in these cities lost their job or because the cities are dealing with homelessness better than west coast cities. The homeless in the these cities leave.
Everyone you mentioned is on the west coast, where the weather is favorable for being homeless and where many other states tend to ship their homeless via one-way bus tickets
I've seen people speculate about homeless use of transit as a deterrent to ridership, but I've never seen any actual numbers on that, and I think it's mostly overblown.
Either way, homeless people making homes on transit isn't a transportation issue, it's a law enforcement/social services issue.
Those few big cities have lax homelessness enforcement. Chicago used to have a massive homeless problem up into the 90s (homeless died in the winter all the time), particularly underneath the freeways and Wacker Drive downtown, then they practically made it illegal and fenced up those spaces.
Interesting. Is it possible that this is also due to the policy of many states and cities of sending their homeless and mentally ill citizens to California on on way tickets?
You mean, homeless people choose to shelter in cities with bad weather, poor social services, and places where the police aggressively crack down on encampments?
I once took a greyhound bus across country. From Mississippi all the way to LA, the bus would stop at each prison, pick people up..they were all going to one place (LA), many of them for the first time. They had nowhere else to go, an open bus ticket, and knowledge that they could survive in LA.
These days, Portland and Seattle are increasingly popular places, not just sunny California.
As someone who doesn't live on the west coast and rarely interacts with homeless people, could you explain how this is "obvious" if there's no measure of it?
Homeless people exist everywhere. In my Wisconsin city they were out of sight because cold kills. In my Missouri city they were out of sight because we’d just arrest them if they didn’t stick to a few block radius.
Consider: if you don’t see homeless people, it might not be because there’s less homelessness. It might just be that they were driven out.
A large amount of our homeless are mentally ill and live on the street by choice. There are shelters in most places, and the 'smart' homeless people hitchhike somewhere warm. It's a much easier time being homeless in California than it is in Minnesota.
Doesn't this analysis miss the fact that homeless people migrate around the country to places with better policies? If you're going to die in the midwest because there are no social institutions to support you and you don't see a realistic way for work and effort to keep you alive, you may as well use your last couple of bucks to take a Greyhound out west to Skid Row and take your chances there.
Or, more brutally, doesn't this analysis miss the fact that without a social safety net, homeless people die? If you can get nutritious meals at a soup kitchen on Skid Row and you have a safe place to keep a tent and some belongings, you're going to be alive and contributing to the homelessness numbers in LA. If you die in the midwest, you don't contribute to their homelessness numbers.
reply