[scelerat]

This article addresses a lot of the myths of homelessness which get repeated in any discussion about SF homeless (with supporting citation).

http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-...

Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless had lived in SF for ten years or more.

The people sleeping on the sidewalk are San Franciscans who have been priced out of housing. San Francisco is their home. These people aren't going anywhere just because you take away their tents.

[Kalium]

> over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless

People should be very, very careful with this number. The criterion used to measure it consider someone who has spent 30+ years in SF to be identical to someone who got off a bus from Nevada, spent a month in a subsidized SRO, and is now in a tent.

Which is to say 48hills is playing a little fast and loose with the truth, but you probably already knew they tend to do that.

[scelerat]

This is a quote from the source, the 2015 San Francisco Housing Count Report:

"Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless, an increase from 61% in 2013. Of those, nearly half (49%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 years or more. Eleven percent (11%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. "

http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...

So, no it's not "fast and loose," they actually did make a distinction between short- and long-term residents.

[Kalium]

You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct in your statements. The 2015 San Francisco Homeless Count Report makes precisely that distinction! They do so because it matters.

Should you choose to check it, you will find that the 48hills page you linked to does not make any such distinction. In fact, it omits the 49% figure altogether and states "That means seven out of ten homeless people used to be your neighbors – before the tech boom and the eviction epidemic".

I think some reasonable people might choose to describe this phrasing as perhaps potentially slightly misleading.

[imh]

That link says that the problem is that they got priced out and that's why they're homeless (and you imply that's the cause too). I don't buy it. I have tons of friends who have gotten priced out of SF, or even the whole bay area. They moved to other parts of the state or country. It sucks, but it didn't make them homeless.

[WillPostForFood]

The increased cost of housing makes dealing with the problem more difficult (expensive). But just because someone used to live in SF doesn't mean the reason they became homeless was the price of housing. The report shows that over 10 years, the homeless population has only increased by 468 people, which does show any strong correlation to the huge increase in the price of housing over that period. High prices have made the problem marginally worse, but the major underlying problems are the same as 10 years ago: drug abuse, mental illness, disability. It is pretty obvious walking around SF that the problem isn't just that rents are too high. These are people who need other kinds of help, and housing pricing talk distracts from the more difficult issues to deal with.

[scelerat]

The price of housing not only affects incentives for landlords to evict; it affects it affects the cost of shelters and temporary housing; it affects the cost of running clinics and social services facilities, and so on.