[bombcar]

taps the sign https://xkcd.com/1138/

There are always more homeless people in the city than in tiny rural towns, because the homeless people in the tiny rural towns move toward the city or get chased out.

It's also true that there are numbers of people in those far rural communities that would end up quite homeless if you forced them into the city. Imagine someone on social security living in a dilapidated trailer on some worthless piece of land.

And also homeless people, even the mentally ill and drug addicted are not stupid. They will go where they get the least hassle and the most benefit. And it's widely known that California is the place to be.

[bluGill]

The the tiny rural towns take care of their own. There are no homeless because everyone knows "joe" is messed up, and so they ignore him living in an otherwise abandoned house (they are around) thus making "Joe" not homeless, and plant a larger garden so he can harvest something. They won't allow someone new move in, but Joe grew up there and so they let him continue to live there. In the city you can't know everyone and so it is much easier to ignore the homeless in a way that doesn't help the homeless.

[convolvatron]

I don't completely agree. From talking with them, a fair number of the homeless in SF are from Lake County and the Central Valley. Went to a shitty school with no job prospects. started on crank. ended up in SF because this is a place where a methhead can enjoy their lifestyle and get by.

[shuckles]

Hey, that's not fair to Humboldt!