Do you have source for calling it an "influx"? According to the city's annual survey (from 2017)[1], 70% of the current homeless population lived in SF county before becoming homeless, 21% lived in another CA county (which may include, say, Berkeley or Oakland), and only 10% came from outside CA. I'd hardly call 10% of the current homeless population an influx.
Isn’t this based on self-answered surveys and not hard verifiable information to establish residency? The homeless and activists/nonprofits advocating on their behalf have an incentive to make it look like they’re mostly local.
Is there any systematic evidence of the oft-repeated idea that homeless are being bussed in from every corner of the country? Besides an anecdotal case or two? If not, why should we believe that it happens with any degree of frequency?
Do you believe that estimates of the total counts of homeless people might be more or less accurate, since there's no supposed incentive for activists to discount it? SF's homelessness per capita is actually not particularly high compared to other major cities, which is not at all what you would expect if homeless were swarming en masse to SF from those other places: https://medium.com/hatchbeat/homelessness-a-tale-of-three-ci... . What's really high in SF and other West Coast cities is the percent of unsheltered homeless. 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 they also don't build sufficient homeless shelters: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-homeless-uns...
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.
> Isn’t this based on self-answered surveys and not hard verifiable information to establish residency?
True, though collecting hard verifiable proof of prior residency from homeless folks seems beyond what can be expected from a one-day citywide survey. :)
If you know of a survey that did collect that information, I'd certainly be interested in the results.
> The homeless and activists/nonprofits advocating on their behalf have an incentive to make it look like they’re mostly local.
I suppose a high out-of-county population might make locals stingier, but getting caught providing bad data also seems like a pretty bad outcome for any of the local non-profits that helped conduct the survey.
No political angle, but to expand on the data from that report (pages 22-23):
* Sixty-nine percent (69%) ... were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless... 8% had lived in San Francisco for less than one year.
* Of their previous living arrangements: 32% with friends or family, 11% in subsidized housing, 8% in a hotel, 6% incarcerated, 3% in hospital, 3% in foster care.
So it's probably more accurate to think of at most 50% of the population as having come from stable housing situations in SF.
This is a really strange comment to unpack. On one hand, housing supply and people without homes are related, at least nominatively. So semantically it feels as if you're making a point.
On the other hand, I can't identify any logic or argument to your comment. As far as I can tell your unspoken logic goes a little like this:
"The difficulty in building housing causes a constrained housing supply. Making it easier to build housing would solve part of the problem. The other part of the problem with the constrained housing supply is people without existing housing moving to the city. But I don't mean people without housing who can afford housing. I mean people without housing who can't afford housing. They constrain the housing supply in the city further."
FWIW, when people complain about the homeless, they are usually referring to people who live on the street, in tents, panhandle, etc. This is the vernacular meaning of the word. Not the much larger population of people who are homeless in the sense that they don't have a permanent place of residence, which is what you're referring to. The people who comprise the vernacular sense of the word are primarily afflicted by mental health and/or addiction issues. Fixing the cost of housing will not get them off of the street.
