- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
The Oregon case decided Friday is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.
Why do these statements never follow immediately stating that California is also 10% of the ENTIRE country’s population and it’s where all of the livable weather is if you have no option but to sleep outside. Of course a lot of them are in California. We need a new deal.
Eh, it’s not just the weather. It’s cities in general. Look at Philly. Winter sucks there but still tons of homeless.
California, outside be mountains, doesn’t really get winters. It’s an attractive place and people will do train hopping to get there.
It’'s not just the big cities with homeless problems, it’s basically everywhere that’s not RURAL, and even then you still see them
When other places send them here, it’s gonna be a problem
Agreed.
Denver has plenty of homeless too, but come on. It’s nowhere near California-levels.
Weathers only part of it, a large part is cost of living and especially housing costs. People have this idea that people become mentally unwell drug addicts then lose housing then move to California for the better weather/ more compassionate state. In reality a lot of it is the reverse, people live in California, lose they’re housing due to astronomical rents, then they become mentally unwell drug addicts due to the pain and trauma they suffer on the streets.
Last point still stands though, we do need a green new deal to give these people housing and employ them in meaningful jobs to help the green transition.
I see people living homeless outside in New England daily, even in the winter. That discrepancy has to be fed by more than just weather.
What discrepancy?
Are you implying that the presence of any homeless people in New England invalidates the idea that consistently favorable weather leads to a higher ratio of homeless people living in an area?
Probably also matters long term vs short term. When someone first becomes homeless, it usually happens where they were already living regardless of the weather. Over time, people may move to where it is more comfortable to sleep outside.
So, all cities have new homeless people plus some that just never leave. And then warm areas have new homeless people plus the long term homeless people who risked traveling to get to warmer temperatures.
I could have been more clear on that. If 1/3 of homeless live in CA and CA makes up 1/10 the population, then CA has disproportionately high homeless population as compared the other states.
I was get at the point that there isn’t one cause for CA having this disparity, another commenter pointed out housing prices for one example. And that other parts of the country, even ones with harsh seasons, are still livable albeit not as hospitable.
Isn’t the average home price in California more than double the average of New England?
True, but also the consequences of living homeless in New England would force you to either come up with some kind of way to afford shelter or move south. Whereas more homeless people die on the streets in California than you might expect, but the perception is that you can live outdoors safely all year. So there’s less incentive to scrape together enough money for a home.
Add to that, very few people move to New England with a crazy idealistic view of their opportunities to make it big. If they move there at all, it’s because they have a job lined up. Dreamers crash and burn in California every day.