[jonas21]

I think a lot of it is the weather -- acting as a forcing function to deliver the observed results.

If NYC, if you don't have enough shelter space, there will be large numbers of people dying in the streets in the winter, so the city's hand is forced, and they have to build enough shelters or rent hotels, etc. That's not the case in California.

And likewise, if you prefer to sleep outside instead of in a shelter, that's an option year-round in California. But not in NYC, at least for a few months a year. So your hand is forced and you have to get used to sleeping in a shelter.

[woodruffw]

> If NYC, if you don't have enough shelter space, there will be large numbers of people dying in the streets in the winter, so the city's hand is forced, and they have to build enough shelters or rent hotels, etc. That's not the case in California.

I don't know whether you intend it as such, but I hear Californians regularly bring up their mild weather as a defense of their state's failure to develop an adequate support system for the homeless.

Focusing on (most of) California's lack of four seasons ignores the brute facts of street living, namely: you're still exposed to the elements and weather (you don't need to be in a cold climate to get hypothermia), to street pollution, and to irregular sleep and disturbance by members of the public and police.

In a humane system any of the above is a sufficient "forcing function," which is why NYC doesn't close homeless shelters once it's "nice enough" to survive outside. California shouldn't need a bodycount to justify housing its homeless.

[randompwd]

> California shouldn't need a bodycount to justify housing its homeless

What percentage of housing should California allocate to homeless people? What conditions should have to be met before the state houses someone?

If I want to temporarily move to LA tomorrow, why don't I just say I'm homeless(which would be true) and force the state to house me somewhere for the duration of my visit?

[woodruffw]

> What percentage of housing should California allocate to homeless people? What conditions should have to be met before the state houses someone?

What percentage of the population should California force onto the streets? Framing the question around a "percentage of housing" minimizes the humanitarian aspect of the problem, at the absolute minimum.

Questions about sufficient conditions are policy ones, and they seem irrelevant (again, at best) to the material fact that SF already has thousands of people sleeping in the open. Focusing on them seems prudent.

> If I want to temporarily move to LA tomorrow, why don't I just say I'm homeless(which would be true) and force the state to house me somewhere for the duration of my visit?

I don't know if you've ever been to a homeless shelter. I have, and you really don't want to live in one unless you absolutely have to. The idea that individuals with means would willingly prefer and tax the resources of the shelter system is farcical.