| >It's just a very hard problem to deal with, and places like CA attract homeless people from other places, because they have good services. The US lacks a comprehensive national plan to deal with homelessness. Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that California is awful when it comes to homelessness. Quite a few cities have higher rates of homelessness than every city in California, but have lower rates of unsheltered homeless people than them (especially SF and LA)[1][2]. I interpret this as meaning that Californian cities are generally worse when it comes to the homeless. On top of that, many cities in California make it illegal to feed the homeless, which is something you don't see as much in the Northeast[3]. I'm also curious as to how a state "attracts" homeless people. I could be wrong about this, but I highly doubt that a person becomes homeless and then thinks, "San Francisco is where I should go," and then somehow travel hundreds or thousands of miles to get there. I feel like given the numbers I'm seeing regarding homelessness per 100k people, people generally don't go to Californian cities for their homeless services. I'm open to learning more since I'm sure that there's context I'm missing, but from what I've read, California is not the best place to be if you're homeless. [1] http://acsh.org/news/2016/10/13/which-cities-have-most-homel... [2] http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/ [3] http://anonhq.com/illegal-feed-homeless-city/ |
Also, some places run people out of town. Las Vegas in particular was caught putting homeless in busses to LA and SFO.
In still other cases, there are many documented incidents were social services people in red states like South Carolina sell the benefits of moving to New York or Massachusetts where services like Medicaid are much better. (Medicaid is cost shared with the state)