No Place To Go
Despite homelessness being on the rise, local governments keep cracking down on efforts to shelter those without permanent housing.

Since 2010 advocates and activists have claimed October 10 as World Homeless Day to raise awareness about the global problem of people living without shelter. That was last Thursday, so this week's Rent Free is a special homeless edition.
All types of housing are regulated too much in America and housing for the most vulnerable is the most regulated of all. This week's stories focus on a couple of recent examples of governments thwarting people's efforts to provide the homeless with shelter, or the homeless to provide shelter for themselves, including:
- The city of Kalispell, Montana, shutting down the local warming shelter just as it was preparing to open for its winter season.
- San Francisco's success at reducing the number of tents on the street by seizing homeless people's tents.
But first, our lead item is a quick overview of national homeless situation. The problem of people living on the streets is a big one and it's only growing bigger.
A Record Number of People Are Living on the Streets
There are roughly 653,104 homeless people in the United States and 256,610 of those people are "unsheltered"—meaning they either live on the streets, in abandoned buildings, or other areas not fit for human habitation.
That's according to the latest annual Point-In-Time survey performed in January 2023 and published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in December 2023.
The 2023 PIT numbers show a 12 percent nationwide increase in the homeless population from 2022.
You are reading Rent Free from Christian Britschgi and Reason. Get more of Christian's urban regulation, development, and zoning coverage.
The Biden administration has blamed that jump on COVID-era eviction protections and housing assistance expiring. HUD itself cautions that its 2022 and 2021 PIT counts of the homeless population might have been artificially reduced because of the pandemic since some jurisdictions only did partial counts during COVID. So, it's possible some of the 12 percent jump in 2023 is explained by more comprehensive surveys being done.
Nevertheless, the trend line is clearly going up. The last pre-pandemic PIT survey from January 2020 reported an overall homeless population of 580,466 and roughly 230,000 unsheltered homeless.
Data from early reporting jurisdictions suggests we can expect another bump in the homeless population in the 2024 PIT.
The number of beds in temporary shelters has grown over the years, but not by enough to serve the growing homeless population. The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) notes in its annual report that there's 218,000 more homeless individuals than there are temporary shelter beds.
Beds in permanent supportive housing settings have grown 250 percent since 2007, reports NAEH. That reflects a shift in policy among federal, state, and local governments to a "housing first" model.
That model has come under criticism for being both expensive and ineffective at ending homelessness. Whether you agree or not with the critics, it's true that the construction of new supportive housing units is not keeping up with the rising homeless population either.
One reason might be that local governments make it incredibly difficult for even private parties to build shelters on their own property.
A Montana City Closes a Warming Center Right as Temperatures Start to Drop
In September, the city council of Kalispell, Montana, took the unusual, and likely unprecedented, step of revoking a permit it had given to a local shelter that had allowed it to offer warm beds to the rural community's homeless during the winter months.
City councilmembers blame the privately funded Flathead Warming Center for attracting out-of-town homeless people to the community, who they say have caused an uptick in crime and disorder in the surrounding neighborhood.
The Flathead Warming Center says those accusations are unfounded and the revocation of its permit was done via an ad hoc, illegal process.
The center is now suing to reclaim its permit and open the shelter again. For Warming Center Director Tonya Horn, time is of the essence.
"We have people show up at the door hoping to have shelter and we're able to give them a blanket, feed folks, and send them out the door," says Horn. Temperatures are already falling below freezing at night. "The most urgent need is for life and limb," she says.
The city of Kalispell declined Reason's request for comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
The History
Horn and co-founder Luke Heffernan opened the Flathead Warming Center in the basement of a local Episcopal Church in 2019. From the beginning, the Warming Center was "low-barrier." People didn't need to be sober to stay there (although drug and alcohol use on site was prohibited) and they could bring their pets.
The original warming center location filled up quickly each night, requiring Horn and Heffernan to frequently turn people away. In 2020, they started looking for a permanent location of their own.
Soon enough they found a suitable property in the center of town. But opening up a permanent warming center there required getting a zoning change and a conditional use permit from the city. The city council would have to approve both, which they did unanimously in September 2020.
The Warming Center says in its lawsuit that it's always striven to minimize its impact on surrounding property owners.
The center's conditional use permit application contained a set of "good neighbor" policies it had to abide by, including barring guests from loitering on the center's property when it was closed, and excluding people who acted in an aggressive manner from the shelter. Horn also agreed to give her cell phone number to surrounding neighbors and check in with them periodically.
Things went smoothly for the first couple years of the center's operation. The city allowed the center to expand from 40 to 50 beds in 2022. No neighbors protested that plan.
The Backlash
Horn says things changed in January 2023. The three-member Flathead County Commission issued a public letter blaming "a low-barrier shelter" for attracting homeless from out of the area to town. The letter called on the community to "be unified in rejecting all things that empower the homeless lifestyle."
Horn disputes the premise of the letter. The Warming Center surveys people who stay there and the vast majority are from Kalispell or have a significant connection (family or a job) to the area.
None of the county commissioners "came to visit the warming center to learn who we are, how we serve people, and who it is that we serve," says Horn. "It gave a platform for hate and we've seen hate roll out for the homeless community."
The Warming Center's lawsuit claims there was an increase in violence against the homeless following the county commission's letter. Seven homeless individuals were beaten, fatally in one such case. Others had eggs thrown at them or were shot with paintball guns.
This eventually culminated in the Kalispell City Council shutting down the Warming Center.
An Unprecedented Step
As Reason has covered before, services and shelters for the homeless are often required to get conditional use permits. Cities typically make that process pretty hard and often have wide discretion to not issue the permit.
To revoke a conditional use permit that's been issued, however, is an extraordinary step. Yet that's exactly what the Kalispell City Council did this past September.
"As far as we can tell, and we've looked, there hasn't been another city that's revoked a conditional use permit where the property owner hasn't violated any law," says Christie Herbet, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which is representing the Warming Center.
The city government has a long list of tools for addressing problems at the Warming Center, says Herbet. It could cite the center for zoning violations. It could file a nuisance lawsuit against it in court.
The city of Kalispell did none of these things. Herbert says they couldn't have because the center had violated no zoning laws, had abided by all the conditions in its conditional use permit, and caused no nuisances.
Instead, the city held a series of public hearings in the summer of 2024 to explore taking away the Warming Center's permit. Per the center's lawsuit, a small number of local residents made vague accusations about the Warming Center attracting crime and vagrants to the area.
The center's critics eventually issued a series of demands to the Warming Center, including that it change from a low- to a high-barrier shelter, submit to random inspections and audits, hire private security to police a half-mile radius around the center, and agree never to expand.
Horn says these conditions were either intolerable or impossible for the center to meet. Negotiations broke down. In September the city council voted to revoke the center's permit.
Fighting to Reopen
In a lawsuit filed last week against the city of Kalispell, the Flathead Warming Center claims that the city's process for revoking its conditional use permit suffered from numerous constitutional deficiencies.
"Because this process was ad hoc and designed to reach the predetermined outcome of revoking the CUP, it had none of the safeguards that ordinarily attend quasi-judicial proceedings with such high stakes," reads their lawsuit.
This all violates the center's due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions, the lawsuit argues.
The Warming Center has also filed for a temporary restraining order to allow it to stay open while their lawsuit is ongoing.
"I think there's a lot of good that could come from the pain of this process," says Horn. "As things play out through the courts hopefully our community will have a better understanding about who we are and what we do and who we serve."
San Francisco Successfully Reduces the Number of People Sleeping in Tents By Cracking Down on the Tents
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson overturned two prior decisions by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that prohibited local governments from arresting or ticketing people for sleeping in public with rudimentary shelter if there were no available beds at local homeless shelters.
Western state governments and localities throughout the 9th Circuit frequently (and falsely) blamed the court's decisions for preventing them from policing nuisances, clearing encampments, and cracking down on public drug dealing.
It is true however that the 9th Circuit's decisions did put some limits on cops seizing tents and blankets from people sleeping outside when they had no other place to go.
After Grants Pass, localities are making up for lost time.
This past week, The San Francisco Standard reported on new city data released by Mayor London Breed's office showing the number of tents on the street had fallen by 60 percent since July 2023.
Yet, as the outlet notes, there's been no increase in the city's shelter population. Nor has there been a rise in referrals to the city's program that provides bus tickets for the homeless to get out of town.
The Standard reporters interviewed a number of the homeless who said the seizure of their tents just meant they were now sleeping on the street without tents.
"I'll go get help whenever I want to, and it has nothing to do with a tent or no tent," said one homeless man who spoke to The Standard. "I haven't ran into anyone yet who said, 'They took my tent, that's it — I'm going to rehab.'"
Quick Links
- J.D. Vance criticizes Ohio's Haitians for violating zoning laws intended to exclude them from the community. One reason homelessness was a rare phenomenon in the 19th century was that the governments didn't have zoning codes setting occupancy limits and banning cheap rooming houses.
- Fairfield, California, is allowing a local church to reopen its homeless ministry before it pays a $310,000 fine the city had slapped on it for various building code violations. Local reporting says that the city still expects the church to pay the fine. The church has claimed in the past that it was singled out for enforcement by a city government hostile to its homeless ministry.
- A University of California, Los Angeles lecturer has gone viral on TikTok with claims he can't afford permanent housing near the university on his salary, effectively forcing him into homelessness.
- Hurricane season, ineligibility from federal disaster relief, and new bans on public sleeping have left Florida's homeless with few options, reports Vox.
- LAist covers Southern California governments' post-Grants Pass crackdown on the homeless sleeping in public.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The government shouldn’t house anyone that hasn’t committed a serious crime. And stop providing taxpayer funded services in areas that result in concentrating transients.
The article was about a city revoking the permit for a privately-funded shelter.
Govt should stop concentrating transients via “free” services. And shouldn’t “pick up the slack” if a private facility is no longer available.
Which has what to do with a city revoking the permit for a privately-funded shelter?
If you are not concentrating people, perhaps private services are not needed and taxpayer money should not be used to replace this facility.
Which has what to do with a city revoking the permit for a privately-funded shelter?
It has to do with the “why” the shelter might be there and “what” could occur after.
Posted below. They apparently didn't live up to the conditions they agreed to for the permit.
It is also about the city (of San Francisco) clearing public spaces of homeless encampments. Which cities really ought to do. It is not clear why Britschgi seems to think it is a bad thing.
Because he doesn’t own the space where the encampments exist, own a business adjacent to them, or live next to them. Also likely not walking down a sidewalk where homeless human poop is deposited. But I could be wrong. Maybe some or all of that is true.
You weren't wrong. The permit was revoked due to terms of their conditional permit and what occurred in the neighborhood after opening.
No lie! Sounds more like a leftist liberal who believes that government should be taking on the burden of "housing the homeless" than a libertarian.
Come live where I do. In the SF Bay Area. Where such policies have only encouraged more.
It still amazes me, that we put out bird seed, and then wonder why flocks of birds show up.
There are plenty of desirable I'd like to live but can't afford. That doesn't give me the right to go take over public or private property there and demand that housing be provided.
What happened to the "freely swing my fist through the air, up to where the nose begins" mantra?
Libertarianism Adapted for Modern Audiences, or "Libertarianism Plus".
Seemed more like they didn't clear the encampments, they just cleared the tents and left the people to sleep on the sidewalk instead.
It was reaching a point in California where it seemed like the major cities were about the only place where someone could sleep in a tent without making a reservation months in advance or potentially being fined by some kind of government agent. Most of the campgrounds I've seen around the state tend to be more set up to accomodate RVs anymore, and the USFS rangers tend to not publish the required maps showing where dispersed camping is or isn't allowed on "public" land. Either way, don't even think about setting up a campfire, and the ban on 1lb propane canisters is going to kick in in another year or so.
Prompted by a high volume of complaints from neighbors and business owners near the Flathead Warming Center on North Meridian Road, Councilor Chad Graham previously requested the work session along with heat maps of law enforcement activity in the area to determine if the facility complies with the permit.
Kalispell residents in recent months have described a transformation of their neighborhood since the center opened, which includes a spike in crime, drug use, trespassing and human waste.
https://flatheadbeacon.com/2024/05/14/residents-divided-over-impacts-of-flathead-warming-center/
Thanks for posting the rest of the story. Christian couldn't manage it.
They only focus on the 20% for whatever windmill they are tilting at.
Privately funded with government grants.
Also, the article does not state that the shelter is privately funded. I assume that is because Christian has different views than I do on the issue, but chose not to be deliberately dishonest.
Oops. The article does claim "privately funded."
I stand by the assumption that privately funded includes government grants.
They're drug addicts. Nearly every single one. The solution is simple.
More fentanyl?
The other day I read something claiming that opioid use is down because overdose deaths are outpacing new addictions.
Yep. Social Darwanism is a bitch. But boy, it's really effective.
"I'll go get help whenever I want to, and it has nothing to do with a tent or no tent," said one homeless man who spoke to The Standard. "I haven't ran into anyone yet who said, 'They took my tent, that's it — I'm going to rehab.'"
Correct. This guy admits that taxpayer funded help is available but he and his associates in the "homeless community" aren't interested. Fuck these assholes. Having said that, not all homeless people are created equal. Many have serious mental illnesses and their families simply don't have the resources to deal with them. They are not part of a "homeless community". They are incapable of dealing with reality through no fault of their own. I strongly suspect that the increase in the homeless population is not the result of an increasing number of schizophrenics. It is consequence of people making a lifestyle choice.
Right. I am having trouble seeing Britschgi's libertarian angle here. There are homeless people occupying public land. There is no libertarian argument that homeless people should get access to that land (thereby denying its use to other people- the people whose taxes largely fund the upkeep of those lands.
By all means, let's get rid of public lands. But until then, the idea that drug addicts in tents should enjoy the right to squat on that land is absurd. And as Britschgi admits, it is the permissive policies allowing homeless to camp these areas unmolested that is the actual cause of them being there.
What are homeless people supposed to do? Where are they supposed to go? If they can't stay on public land, and cities shut down privately-funded shelters, what's left?
They can immigrate to Haiti.
Take the shelter they're offered.
Trigger warning: Journalistic use of "complicated" which means "fuck, this narrative is going to be tough to weave"
Does the shelter cause any negative externalities to anyone in the neighborhoods? Should they be liable for those costs as well?
As a formerly homeless man, Sarcasmic has a vested interest.
Did any of the kids of the homeless there visit their homeless dad then key a car owned by one of the local homeowners?
Please. Invite them to come live with you.
And, get your Bernie Bros on board to also invite them into their homes.
Then get back to us in a year or so, about how effective this was in solving the "problem" of homelessness.
That's a good point, but not so simple on a web site that favors drug legalization.
Well, prohibition didn't stop the situation.
I'm all for legalization of just about everything, but it needs to be combined with personal responsibility. The problem I see with a lot of the decriminalization attempts is that they ignore drug laws and also a bunch of other ones that are legitimate. Let people do drugs if they want, but don't tolerate their anti-social behavior.
You mean I can't get blitzed and drive on the freeway?
Whitefish isn't far from Kalispell.
Maybe Misek could take a break from licking Spencer's nuts and go harass the homeless people there with his insanity until they either seek help, or make their way to Missoula where there's a lot more bleeding hearts to fight to keep the warming shelter open year round.
Despite homelessness being on the rise
...he wrote, waking up from his 12 year long nap.
Back when “Libertarians: Trying to take over the world and leave you alone.” was satirical because libertarians weren’t really trying to take over the world per se and not satirical because they weren’t really planning on leaving you alone.
There's a fine line between 1. aiding and 2. aiding and abetting.
And between helping and enabling.
Everything they do makes housing more expensive and less attainable.
Moratoriums on building permits, goofy zoning laws, rental licensing, smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, backflow preventers, insulation standards, sprinkler requirements, restrictions on lumber harvesting, over the top energy efficiency requirements for appliances and the cherry on top – making energy more expensive. Guess what? It takes a lot of energy to build a house or an apartment building.
"A University of California, Los Angeles lecturer has gone viral on TikTok with claims he can't afford permanent housing near the university on his salary, effectively forcing him into homelessness."
Exactly.
There is no middle ground between what he wants to pay for a house, regardless of the local market, and total homelessness. No chance at all he could live elsewhere and commute. Impossible to get roommates. Making a huge assumption about the politics of UCLA lecturers, but he could always ride the marvelous public transportation they claim is the final answer to all problems.
Especially since he must have been tricked into taking the job with no possibility of evaluation the wages against the cost of living there.
Dude's salary is 70k.
Move.
Where else is the slacker gonna get $70K for teaching "X-studies"?
Making $70k in L.A. means you can afford to live in a "bad part of town" with at least 2 roommates in a 2BR apartment, and maybe one of the 3 might be able to own a car, provided it was a model that ran on leaded gas when it was new off the lot. On the bright side, nobody's going to steal that catalytic converter while you're sleeping.
Looking at apartment listings around that campus, if someone making $70k/year were willing to pay half their take-home in rent, they could possibly get something bigger than 500 sq ft, possibly even a 1BR instead of a studio (assuming they can come up with the $6k move-in cost), and leaving $500/week to cover all other expenses including food, utilities, transportation, and entertainment. Splitting a 2BR with a roommate might save them a few hundred a month compared to that.
It's a tough area for affordability, between being a fairly affluent part of town, competing with student renters who mostly aren't covering their own living expenses, and the premium that new move-ins get charged to subsidize the losses being taken on all the rent controlled units where long term tenants barely cover their share of the property manager's compensation and the mandatory termite inspections.
For those willing to commute from a more affordable area, 300 sq ft "dormitory style" unit in Boyle Heights runs about $900/month including utilities (parking appears to be extra, but on $70k/year it's unlikely they could afford a car that would draw much attention parked on the street as long as nothing was left visible inside it overnight).
One thing that got lost in the "fight for $15" around here is that the only way to live on $15/hour under "progressive" governance is to have two or more people each with multiple jobs sharing a space that most animal shelters wouldn't release a dog or a cat to for adoption.
"...Especially since he must have been tricked into taking the job with no possibility of evaluation the wages against the cost of living there..."
It's surprising who many people have fallen into this trap! Or not surprising the number of bullshitters who hope we believe it.
I imagine his position isn’t 50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year. He could have a side hustle or two such as appearing in gay porn (or possibly how he may reference it as filming his weekend).
And then become a school choice advocate. The possibilities are endless.
Lol
Like a ball diamond in a cornfield...if we want to "reward" the perpetually drugged who are disinterested in their own responsibilities to care for themselves otherwise.
Send the illegals back.
Lock up the crazy ones.
Jail the criminals.
Bingo, problem solved.
The only issue left is where will the grifters get a real job?
ctrl-f "trespassing" 0/0
Until we are ready to exile those who do not want to live responsibly in this country we are stuck with this. Greenland is just wide open for settling.
Not sure why all the libs in Cali can't open their homes for these people. Wait, yes I do know. Progressives are the worst people.
Trump tried to buy Greenland which would have solved this problem but the libertarians screamed their heads off.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/19/752274659/no-joke-trump-really-does-want-to-buy-greenland
"Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen... responded to Trump's remarks by saying emphatically that 'Greenland is not for sale.'"
"'Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland,' Frederiksen said"
Well if it belongs to Greenland, why is it up to the Danish prime minister as to whether it's for sale?
I haven't clicked through to the article, and I admit to know very little of the geopolitics of this part of the world, but that there, is an excellent question.
That reminds me a little bit of the post-brexit situation where there was some kind of anti-brexit youth party running an MP in England as an attempt to reverse Brexit. He was doing interviews and a skeptical interviewer started asking him some difficult questions and some handler walked up and started saying the interview was over. During the kerfuffle, the interviewer turned to the young MP and said something like "Your Boss wants you to leave" and the dude who stopped the interview said, "I'm not his boss" and then ordered the MP candidate to leave.
He is saying that while Greenland may be a protectorate of Denmark, he does not think he has the authority to sell Greenland without the Greenlanders consent. That should not be confusing.
Then why did she say, "Greenland is not for sale?" Did she ask Greenlanders that?
A much simpler answer is she's just posturing, that she indeed does believe Greenland belongs to Denmark (because it does), but it sounds better to say otherwise. Greenlanders overwhelmingly favor independence, so the fact that they don't have it may suggest what Denmark actually feels about the situation.
It seems that Jefferson's Louisiana purchase worked out well for the U.S. Which was actually more libertarian then than now.
Throw in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Gadsden Purchase, the purchase of Alaska, and the annexation of Hawaii and I'd say that, capitalism is a great way to build a nation and avoid wars over territory.
TL;DR yet, but a great deal of the problem in the USA is due to the success of libertarians, Tom Szasz in particular. I'm afraid we blew it. There really are some problems not amenable to libertarian solutions, it seems. I was as wrong as most, sorry. There really are behaviors that betray what, by reasonable criteria, are illness, and we needn't go to the Communist extreme of treating any behaviors we don't like as signs of them; there's a reasonable middle ground that's always going to be fuzzy, to the chagrin of everyone who'd like to solve all problems on principles.
I have to agree. Involuntary confinement was widely abused and and a obvious violation of the NAP. But the situation we're left with is untenable. I don't have the answers either.
"The Warming Center's lawsuit claims there was an increase in violence against the homeless following the county commission's letter. Seven homeless individuals were beaten, fatally in one such case. Others had eggs thrown at them or were shot with paintball guns.
This eventually culminated in the Kalispell City Council shutting down the Warming Center."
I guess I'm supposed to assume that some cowboy vigilantes started beating up homeless people for no particular reason except that the commission released a sternly written letter. Or were the homeless beating each other up? We don't know. But obviously the City Council found this ongoing disorder bad enough to shut it down. Reason, as usual, presents the plaintiffs case as fact. And maybe it is. But we don't really know.
We've experienced a number of shootings in homeless encampments. And, they weren't from outsiders.
Do the math.
"This week's stories focus on a couple of recent examples of governments thwarting people's efforts to provide the homeless with shelter, or the homeless to provide shelter for themselves."
The people who do have houses, businesses, pay all the taxes for soceity, dont want takers in their city. So what? The homeless can move somewhere people want them, and the people who want to house them can move there too. Win win.
Plump Jack winery has lots of space. But I don't think Gavin is going to be accomodating.
And. To no one's surprise, JD Vance is wrong about homelessness.
'All types of housing are regulated too much in America and housing for the most vulnerable is the most regulated of all.'
And by "regulated" do you mean laws and rulings that prevent some people from giving away community rights and resources?
The city of Kalispell, Montana, shutting down the local warming shelter just as it was preparing to open for its winter season.
The most recent census data I could find puts Kalispell's population at 24,558 people, with about a quarter of them under age 18 and about 53% women. Now, I could be totally misguided here, but exactly how much homeless population do you think a town like that should have to support? Because I'm really guessing that a lot of them aren't all that local (beyond, "my mom's best friend's uncle's brother in law lived somewhere around here") . And adding on to that the shelter isn't doing much in the way of managing their behavior beyond forbidding loitering and drug use at the shelter. Smack dab in the middle of town.
Not to worry. Winter will force them elsewhere or, kill them off.
There is a reason that California is home to some 30% of homeless nationwide. It's got something to do with sunshine and a Mediterranean. climate.
Now, states like Montana? Well, God has smiled on them.
Tent cities are back again!
There must of been a [D]-trifecta government.
> ... or other areas not fit for human habitation.
Do you even language? Be definition, if people are living there, those areas are "fit for human habitation." If said areas were actually not fit for human habitation, then humans would not be able to inhabit them.
Now, if you want to argue that the areas do not meet a certain, minimum standard of fitness then do so, but don't use emotive rhetoric by hyperbolizing the areas as "not fit for human habitation."
There are roughly 653,104 homeless people in the United States and 256,610 of those people are "unsheltered"—meaning they either live on the streets, in abandoned buildings, or other areas not fit for human habitation.
Would you mind please, breaking those numbers down by State? I'd like to see if there are any weird patterns in those totals.
The Biden administration has blamed that jump on COVID-era eviction protections and housing assistance expiring.
You mean once the squatters and deadbeats were no longer allowed by their government to legally rip-off legitimate property owners who were forced to take huge losses with no recourse or restitution.
So, look, I'm not going to waste my time with this tripe. The vagrancy problem has a DIRECTLY CORRELATIVE problem that nobody here wants to discuss.
Because that problem is recreational drug use and its subsequent addictions. There are places for the vagrants to go. They explicitly reject them because they can't get high there. And then they spend their days shuffling and shambling, doing whatever they have to get drugs, use drugs, and then find a place on the street to ride out their high.
If you are not against recreational drug use, then you are for these pitiful people having "no place to go." Simple as that.
Now, in fairness, there's a fair share of mental health issues in the equation as well. Often times, they go hand-in-hand with recreational drug use. Other times, it's just an un-dealt with problem. But it falls under the same category as being tolerant of recreational drug use.
If we're being tolerant of it, we're not acknowledging it as a serious problem - or as a major contributor to homelessness. Once upon a time we had asylums and sanitariums. It was for a very good reason, long before this "aLtErNaTiVe LiFeStYLe" nonsense became chic and we stopped pretending that mental health problems weren't mental health problems (while instead pretending that things like being uncomfortable with uncomfortable situations, or kinda feeling blue now and then, or not being able to focus in class/work were major issues that needed tons of therapy and Big Pharm; instead of things that, only a few decades ago we would have responded to with, "Stop being a pussy.")
But now we tolerate the drugs, and we encourage the mental illness - and in doing so, we create the fertile ground that vagrants and derelicts now camp out on.
If you're not going to be serious about the major contributors to the problem, then you're not being serious about the problem. Finding them homes won't solve anything if they just shoot up and go untreated in them. It'll just destroy the value of those homes, and harm their nearby economy.
Would you mind please, breaking those numbers down by State? I’d like to see if there are any weird patterns in those totals.
Shhhhhhhhhh. You're not allowed to notice. It's transphobic and double racist.
Put them in the military. Or Boy Scouts.
Then need to learn to bivouac efficiently. Stolen shopping carts aren't the answer.