I Love Living Down South Where We Have Our Guns And Our Religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

This is the problem....you are talking about San Francisco. Not "California". As you know, this is a GIGANTIC state. So because something happens in one city 8.5 hours away (which in most of the US is several states away) does not mean that its a "California" problem. But no one ever says, "I would never live in San Francisco because of the homeless". They spray paint the entire state.

I have experienced that exact same scenario you described with your family in large cities all over the world. I was on a beach in Ft. Lauderdale at 10am and had to literally pack all of my stuff up and leave because a homeless man who was tripping on heroin wanted to lay on our towels. But I don't paint the entire state of Florida that way. Big cities deal with different problems. Downtown San Francisco has a serious homeless problem. THAT isn't overblown. So does downtown LA. But "California" doesn't. THAT is overblown.
But the headlines on Fox News will always say "California". Like its rampant across the state or something. And that is just silly.

Its like saying that a tourist should avoid a certain neighborhood of Miami because of a drug cartel and therefore Pensacola better beware.

And like Chuck's other thread.....these people are by in large not homeless because of home prices. That is just simply not true. They are homeless because of drug/alcohol use and/or mental illness.

---

Did you not read the linked article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

According to the market watch link, California has 47% of the nation’s homeless people. It’s on the news....because it is news.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...-us-2019-09-18

---

Quote:

---

At the city level, four of the five cities with the highest rate of unsheltered homelessness are in California: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Rosa and San Jose. Seattle joins the California municipalities in the top five.

---

Its not just San Francisico. Saying it just selected areas is silly. That is like claiming there is not homeless problem in America because its a large nations. It is a problem because it is not being adequately addressed! But realistically, does it matter if CA is a big place? The issues in LA and SF are unique due to how extensive it is in those locations. I have never had to maneuver around human waste in Miami, a place I visit frequently. Nor do I have psychotic homeless people chase me down in the street screaming in my face. There are not "tent cities" inhabited by heroine shooting junkies. There is no fear of Cholera or the Plague in Miami, like there is in San Fran and LA. You can try to minimize the political lure of California to the homeless by deflecting to other states but reality is that it IS A PROBLEM in California. Does Lauderdale have selected pockets of issues with homelessness/high crime/drug use? Sure. So does Miami, NYC, Detroit, etc. but that does not justify ignoring the problems. As for your issues in Lauderdale, Florida is a big state too, with lots of beaches, hence its not a problem here. See, it sounds stupid when I use that logic too. Likewise you claim it is a Foxnews derived issue fails. Numerous NON-Fox sites have similar reports. this link, from the federal gov't which is hardly a fox friendly site, has CA as the number #1 homeless state with almost 50% more than #2 (NY)

I get it. You love your state. I don't disagree that CA is a beautiful, and large, place. But they do have a homeless issue. That issue is using up state tax dollars. Dollars from the entire large state. Additionally it is driving away tourism from the entire large state, which also hurts revenue and business owners in the state. And until the state addresses the problem, it will continue to be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I get it. You love your state. I don't disagree that CA is a beautiful, and large, place. But they do have a homeless issue. That issue is using up state tax dollars. Dollars from the entire large state. Additionally it is driving away tourism from the entire large state, which also hurts revenue and business owners in the state. And until the state addresses the problem, it will continue to be a problem.

---

I don't disagree with any of that. Your sentence about tourism is really my entire point. There is a false idea in some peoples minds that if they go to "California" they are going to be stepping over homeless feces left and right. They aren't.
If they go to downtown SF they might. Or parts of downtown LA.
In fact, I wouldn't recommend going to either of those cities right now if someone is worried or skirmish etc about seeing those things. Because they are without a doubt there.

But there are hundreds of other gorgeous places in California to visit where you will never see anything like that.

I am not saying YOU, as in Doc is spreading a false narrative. I am saying its out there. That this is how "California" is. Its not. Its how a few big cities in California is. Don't go there then. But there is a heck of a lot more to the state where it isn't. FAR more than where it is.

And I wouldn't mind if it hurt tourism a bit. Ha. Tourism is "booming". It grew for the 7th straight year. https://www.vcstar.com/story/money/b...ow/1092489001/

Personally, I've never understood why anyone goes to "Hollywood". I hate that city. Its dirty and filled with teenagers high on something who ran away from home.

But San Diego (which has homeless but has done a much better job dealing with it), Santa Barbara, Palm Springs, Napa/Sonoma, etc etc are large areas and GORGEOUS places to visit where you will rarely see anything described above.

I am not denying that it’s an issue. As I said, I’ve been on the front line of this as a board member of a non profit for years.
It’s just, some cities have done a much better job than others.
It’s a local issue. Far more than a state one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I am not denying that it’s an issue. As I said, I’ve been on the front line of this as a board member of a non profit for years.
It’s just, some cities have done a much better job than others.
It’s a local issue. Far more than a state one.

---

Can't argue that, and it's no coincidence the deep blue cities in California have the biggest problems, and the redder ones have less issue.

You subsidize things you want to encourage, tax things you want to discourage. lexington's homeless problem is growing as our services for the homeless expand, and it's not a freak coincidence. We're attracting the homeless (and non-homeless who just want to come hang out in the summer) by offering more and more services and free stuff, then we're surprised people react and show up to receive the benefits.

These people are crazy and stoned, but not dumb.

Homeless death rate up in LA. Drug and alcohol abuse the leading cause

Interesting take, a conservative slant, but it is kinda hard to deny the one party system in place in California. And this little blurb which I’m gonna check out on the web this evening.

“Has California become premodern?

Millions of fed-up middle-class taxpayers have fled the state. Their presence as a stabilizing influence is sorely missed. About one-third of the nation's welfare recipients live in California. Millions of poor newcomers require enormously expensive state health, housing, education, legal and law-enforcement services.”

https://townhall.com/columnists/vict...odern-n2555588

California's Prop 47 leads to rise in shoplifting, thefts, criminal activity across state

This thread cracks me up. 17 straight posts about California after I posted that America has some weird fixation with it.

People can keep writing articles about it. They can talk about how many people move out of the state (and never mention the #1 reason: to retire. Their home value is so high they can sell here, buy a mansion in Nevada and live off the rest for retirement). And politicizing natural disasters and pretending its because California is liberal and that's why. Taxes. Regulations. Homelessness. On and on.

Meanwhile, our home values (meaning equity) continue to soar (mostly because people actually want to live here). Our tourism is booming. We are still the most visited state in the United States (because people love seeing Armageddon and poop all over the streets I am sure).
We have the largest economy in the United States, 5th largest in the world and yet we are ranked as the 4th healthiest economy in the United States (https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...onomies/21697/). Kentucky is 45th...just fyi.

We have had 7 straight years of economic growth (which is why Newsom is so popular here despite the national press coverage).

As the world's 5th largest economy, California outpaces the United States in job growth, manufacturing, personal income, corporate profits and the total return of its bonds (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...y-outpaces-u-s).

Keep hating all. Keep finding articles (there are plenty of them. Usually 2-3 on FoxNews.com every day). Keep posting until your hearts are content. California can be the Evil Empire for every other state.

And I will enjoy my soaring home equity, 80 degrees with no humidity (literally today), beaches, breweries, booming economy, wine country and one of the most diverse states in the United States. Oh, and we have guns and churches too if thats your thing.

And when any of you come visit, which many inevitably will, I will be glad to guide you around the piles of poop, the homeless, the caravans of people moving out of the state, the liberal hippies playing hacky-sack in the streets and buy you your first drink in a bar full of miserable people who can't wait to move.

Puma, California's weather is insanely good. No doubt.

And yes the rest of the state gets painted with the extremes of San Francisco and LA. But that's true of every state. Texas gets painted as cowboys, despite the fact that it's not even close, kentucky as hillbillies, etc. That's true of every state.

The reason why Cali gets the image isn't just press coverage selection, though that's a lot of it. It's also b/c Cali is a single party state and thus and for many years has been an early bellweather of implementing policies that frankly most of the country finds to be extreme.

Those policies often then trickle out nationally, so yes a lot of people, esp. in redder states, do see Cali as having some kind of evil force going on, b/c it seems to be the kicking off point for a lot of things people in other parts of the country don't like and/or outright despise.

That's what draws the ire as much as anything. I know Texans very unhappy with Cali people moving there b/c they bring their liberal ideas with them, and it's mostly liberals moving there b/c as you said it's urban home values that are driving some of their retirement moves, that and lower taxes.

Florida is full of people retiring b/c of lack of income taxes. So some of it is home values, but some is taxation.

And no doubt Cali has a booming economy, driven by being the center of American tech industry for the most part, along with being the port of call for our trade with the Pacific.

So while Cali has "the 5th largest economy in the world", a LOT of that is due to the fact that it's the port for the other 47 states in the mainland US. It's not all Cali's doing b/c everyone is consuming all the cheap Chinese junk that lands in LA.

But that doesn't mean they arent' slowly killing the golden goose either. maybe not as bad as New York, which frankly has crappy weather and not nearly as much else to offer as California, but it's going to happen.

Cali also has a huge real estate market, which gets counted in GDP but is a bit misleading. When all those very expensive home sell that goes into GDP but it's tough to translate that to quality of life etc.. In some ways real estate, in every state, is a bit misleading when added to GDP numbers b/c the basis grows but it's almost all paper money, not really re-invested as capital in the way growth in manufacturing for example would impact an area economy.

It became a discussion of Cali in part b/c of your posts, and there's good and bad there like everywhere.

I will tell you the one place Cali deserves FAR more criticism than it gets. It's essentially no longer a democratic government. The one party rule has so distorted the notion of fair voting that it's questionable if there are really any fair elections left in the state.

That's an extreme statement but I stand by it. When someone is sent to jail in North Carolina, not known for it's great election laws either, for something (hand harvesting of other people's ballots) that is outright encouraged in California, something isn't right. the state Democratic party has intentionally built huge flaws into the chain of custody for ballots there just to insure their grassroots people can stuff the ballot box.

It's a constitutional travesty and crisis IMO, far worse than the homeless problem.

Just looked it up, and GDP of Cali has the largest segment as finance, insurance, real estate and leasing. Almost $538 billion. The problem is a lot of that doesn't really count as economically "growing the pie", i.e. producing actual things to meet consumer needs. Sure they need housing, but the fact that housing there is so costly inflates that number greatly.

Providing an apartment there for $3K that is the same as one in Lexington for $500 doesn't mean California has added $2,500 more in economic growth to the nation. It just means their housing is that much more expensive.

In a way it's an economic sump. Fine art, gold, same thing. You can buy low and sell high and make money, but the investment in it doesn't actually expand the economy. Now, investing in new real estate or upgrading does have some non-sump value, so it's not 100% like fine art, but a lot of the value of what is transacting in Cali and any other state is really just paper wealth and not actually helping people by expanding the goods and services available to the nation.

That's not particular to Cali, all states have that number in their calculation, but it's huge in Cali's case b/c of the cost of real estate.

it's also hard to break it out in Cali and New York b/c it does I believe include financial services, which obviously in New York is huge beyond real estate, and is very big in California.

But look at Kentucky. manufacturing is #1, Finance/Real estate is #2, Government #3, Education #4.

To Cali's credit, government is 5th or 6th. That's another big sump.

It's all a fair measure b/c it's the same for all states, but it's also misleading overall as a statistic as to what's going on economically.

The great news is that everyone on this board get to live exactly where they want to. And there are a lot of wonderful and beautiful states to live in. I won’t (but certainly could) say a bad word about anyone’s home state because we all have different priorities, politics and passions.

As I’ve said, I’ve lived in several states and visited all 50. It’s a beautiful country we have here.

I’ve been in California 22 years. I’ve loved every one of those years and couldn’t imagine living somewhere else. 40 million other people agree with me.

Oh dude, other states deserve to be ripped on as much as Cali, and more in some cases. let it fly! :)

I've only been in Cali a few times, and the weather was unbelievably perfect and where I stayed was great. I was visiting friends who had money though, so we stayed in a nice area where you could walk down to the beach, walk up to shops and restaurants, etc.

It was sweet. But in truth if you're staying in the rich areas, most states have some nice ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Oh dude, other states deserve to be ripped on as much as Cali, and more in some cases. let it fly! :)

I've only been in Cali a few times, and the weather was unbelievably perfect and where I stayed was great. I was visiting friends who had money though, so we stayed in a nice area where you could walk down to the beach, walk up to shops and restaurants, etc.

It was sweet. But in truth if you're staying in the rich areas, most states have some nice ones.

---

Every state I’ve been to has their beauty as well as their warts. I’ve been lucky the few times I’ve been to Cali that I really haven’t seen the bad stuff. I’ve got an uncle and a cousin who live in North Hollywood. She loves the state period while my uncle only loves the weather. I like to tease him and say that he, Devin Nunes, and Kevin McCarthy are the only conservatives in the entire state which he gets a kick out of. He’d be back home in good old Knifley, KY in a minute though if his only grandchild wasn’t in Cali.

I’m hoping to take a fun trip to San Fran area in the next couple years to watch my beloved 49ers play at home. I’ve seen them play in Cincy, Indy and Nashville but a home game is on my bucket list.

California has a lot more conservatives than people think, that's for sure. part of the problem is they are in enough of a minority that the Democrats have been able to rig the elections so they have almost no voice.

The jungle primary keeps a lot of GOP candidates off the final ballot, and then the ballot stuffing keeps the rest from winning office.

I’ve been twice and will head back a third time in January. But out in the desert this time. In general, it is too urban and crowded for me, along the coast. I feel trapped against the ocean with no way to escape for 50 miles to Sacramento or apple valley. Orange is a nice college town whose borders are defined by three freeways! And I’ve gone from downtown LA to the art district and seen skid row. Also lived for a while in Reno. Sister city Sparks is home to millions? of sq ft of warehouse space for hauling into CA because in doing so they escape CA intrastate regulations. I pay a lot of attention to the “price appreciation” of CA housing. South Bay and Stanford and San Francisco. And I see the impact of all the liberal voters moving to Bozeman from CA who, leaving the mess they left behind, immediately want
To bring the same policies here.

I know people who fled. To winter sept to june. Because they cashed in their appreciation and now are driving the locals out here. And wondering why we dont have all the stuff and government and giveaways they had there. Montana is great but making it here in a small town is hard economically and it’s cold. So I know why people leave. Why are people leaving their California paradise in such numbers? Or New York? Or Illinois?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Montana is great but making it here in a small town is hard economically and it’s cold. So I know why people leave. Why are people leaving their California paradise in such numbers? Or New York? Or Illinois?

---

I will answer this begrudgingly (knowing I am keeping the topic alive).

Well its not because of the large amounts of homeless poop on the sidewalks.

California is by far the most populous state. We have double the amount of people than the 3rd most populous state (Florida). So it only make sense that with FAR more people, we will have a lot of people moving in and a lot of people moving out. No one ever seems to mention this (and should be mentioned in almost any discussion about it).

So, any discussion on people moving to or from should use %'s and not raw numbers to reflect the population of thats state.

California wasn't even in the Top 10 of states people moved out of last year (2018). https://www.unitedvanlines.com/top-states-to-move-to

And we don't need to guess why people moved or not. The link above tells us why.

For California, the #1 reason people moved from was Jobs, followed by family and retirement. To me, this is again no surprise.

As beautiful as it is here, its expensive. That is just the bottom line. When you have by far the highest population in the U.S. living in only a few concentrated areas....housing prices are just going to be crazy in those areas*. Even without the regulations and taxes, etc (which doesn't help). Its simple supply and demand. Its a beach and population tax. And restaurants can charge more, etc because people will pay it.
For many people, it just doesn't make financial sense to live here. They either can't afford to purchase a home or they can afford far more of a home somewhere else.
Almost every friend I know who have moved away...that is their reason why.
Its a question of priority.
For us (for now), we choose to live here. We prioritize the weather, beach, lifestyle, etc. We could easily move to another state (like Utah or Idaho or Nevada or Arizona) which many do and work the same type of job and have far more house, etc.
The housing prices are a COMPLIMENT to California, not an insult. A lot of people live here. By far the most in the U.S. So people leaving for job or retirement are mostly tied to housing prices.

I LOVE it here (which is why I live here). And yet, there is a very good chance that I will not retire here. I will likely sell my home at some point and retire where it is less expensive. So, I will someday likely add to the number of those moving out. Not because of taxes or politics or poop on the sidewalk. But simply because it makes too much sense to cash in on my huge home investment. The money isn't mine in hand until I sell. And I'm not the only one who has figured that out.

*Barstow is also California. Same regulations, state taxes, etc. I've been there 20 times and never seen a homeless person. The median home price is $140,000. $40,000 less than Lexington, KY. $300,000 less than Bozeman, MT. Housing prices are low in areas no one wants to live. Its that simple.

It's true much of the reason for high home prices is the simple demand for the area, no doubt, but it's exacerbated by policies as well. For example, there's a good Bloomberg article dealing with the fact that those areas won't allow high density housing.

Also while some of the costs are due to building codes b/c of earthquakes, there's also a lot of regulatory overhead.

That article also touched on Prop 13, and how that reduces the value of residential housing to cities, favoring commercial development.


But the reason Cali gets a bad rap is basically San Fran and LA, which IMO deserve their criticism. Here's today's headline:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san...of-life-crimes

Not only does it say he won't prosecute for urination, etc., but also says he won't for buying and selling sex, which apparently is now also a "quality of life" issue, not a crime.

This guy is the son of parents who were Weather Underground, in prison for that robbery that left 3 dead. And he's now the DA.

That's why the rap. The rest of the state doesn't deserve it, but San Fran is SO extreme in so many ways that's what people see and talk about.

And I get not liking it. I don't like that Kentucky is seen as the Hatfields and McCoys either.

Only half of it lol. West Virginia gets the other half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

It's true much of the reason for high home prices is the simple demand for the area, no doubt, but it's exacerbated by policies as well. For example, there's a good Bloomberg article dealing with the fact that those areas won't allow high density housing.

Also while some of the costs are due to building codes b/c of earthquakes, there's also a lot of regulatory overhead.

That article also touched on Prop 13, and how that reduces the value of residential housing to cities, favoring commercial development.


But the reason Cali gets a bad rap is basically San Fran and LA, which IMO deserve their criticism. Here's today's headline:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san...of-life-crimes

Not only does it say he won't prosecute for urination, etc., but also says he won't for buying and selling sex, which apparently is now also a "quality of life" issue, not a crime.

This guy is the son of parents who were Weather Underground, in prison for that robbery that left 3 dead. And he's now the DA.

That's why the rap. The rest of the state doesn't deserve it, but San Fran is SO extreme in so many ways that's what people see and talk about.

And I get not liking it. I don't like that Kentucky is seen as the Hatfields and McCoys either.

---

Bad Rap 2 “UC Berkeley instructor calls rural Americans 'bad people' who deserve 'uncomfortable' lives“

Heh. Not to beat up on you too bad. You may be the best Californian I know! My buddy Jack’s livin in Orange and in January we are hunting dinos up at Havasu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Bad Rap 2 “UC Berkeley instructor calls rural Americans 'bad people' who deserve 'uncomfortable' lives“

Heh. Not to beat up on you too bad. You may be the best Californian I know! My buddy Jack’s livin in Orange and in January we are hunting dinos up at Havasu.

---

Ha. No worries. California is such a melting pot that its impossible to paint anything or anyone with a broad paint brush. I know a lot of great people here. There are some I don't care for. There are some areas I don't care for. And many I love. That's of course how it would be with a huge state and a lot of people.

‘Go back to California’: Wave of newcomers fuels backlash in Boise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

‘Go back to California’: Wave of newcomers fuels backlash in Boise

---

“It’s really, really hard to swallow,” he said, “when somebody sells their house in California for $700,000, comes here, buys any house they want in cash and still has money in the bank.

“Their kids get to go to college,” he continued. “They drive nice cars. And they get to enjoy everything we built over the years. We don’t get to enjoy it, because we’re working 40 hours a week and doing craft shows and doing yard sales.”

Just passing this along......

https://www.msn.com/en-us/Health/med...les/ar-AAH4Fnt

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...state-n2548969

I think an analogy can clear this up.

It would be like if everyone referred to Illinois as messed up due to the situation in Chicago. So to that degree I completely get Puma's point. Bakersfield isn't anything like San Fran.

that being said, it doesn't mean Chicago shouldn't be criticized.

The criticism is valid, it should just be leveled at the parts of California to which it applies.

I think Cali gets an overall rap versus Chicago/Illinois b/c Cali is a one party state and their state government passes a a lot of liberal legislation very in tune with San fran and LA, and it is usually stuff that ends up making it on the national radar.

That gets the rest of Cali lumped in with San Fran and LA. Back in the 80s when Reagan was there you didn't see the generalizations to quite this extent.

Agree with that. However, those 2 links allude to the real possibilities of 3rd world problems due to the homelessness issues there.
Agree about the Chicago to Illinois analogy too. I’m from Illinois and I get it. Much of Illinois would be OK to donate Chicago to Wisconsin because of the political messes Chicago has voted the state into. California is no different in that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I think an analogy can clear this up.

It would be like if everyone referred to Illinois as messed up due to the situation in Chicago. So to that degree I completely get Puma's point. Bakersfield isn't anything like San Fran.

that being said, it doesn't mean Chicago shouldn't be criticized.

The criticism is valid, it should just be leveled at the parts of California to which it applies.

I think Cali gets an overall rap versus Chicago/Illinois b/c Cali is a one party state and their state government passes a a lot of liberal legislation very in tune with San fran and LA, and it is usually stuff that ends up making it on the national radar.

That gets the rest of Cali lumped in with San Fran and LA. Back in the 80s when Reagan was there you didn't see the generalizations to quite this extent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

Agree with that. However, those 2 links allude to the real possibilities of 3rd world problems due to the homelessness issues there.
Agree about the Chicago to Illinois analogy too. I’m from Illinois and I get it. Much of Illinois would be OK to donate Chicago to Wisconsin because of the political messes Chicago has voted the state into. California is no different in that regard.

---

Oh, the problems are quite real, and their solution is of course to coddle it and add to it rather than address the actual problems.

The truth is a lot of these people need to be forcibly locked up and either rehabbed or committed or both. It's a problem that began in the 1960s and then got worse under Reagan in the 1980s when they released a lot of mental patients out to the streets.

They simply cannot care for themselves, and left to their own devices end up with drug problems living in squalor. If the left really cared about them they wouldn't simply allow public urination, they'd ask why any sane adult would ever do such a thing and take action to actually care for people who do.

The rest of it is a drug problem. The vast majority of these people are addicts and/or mentally ill. It's just that simple.

The solution is mental health facilities to house and care for them and drug programs to get them clean. Actual availability of housing is honestly not even the first issue. They can't hold a job or do anything productive to be able to own or maintain a home unless and until you solve the drug/mental illness issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

That gets the rest of Cali lumped in with San Fran and LA. Back in the 80s when Reagan was there you didn't see the generalizations to quite this extent.

---

Yes, except that honestly needs to be zoomed in even more.

"San Fran" is 47 square miles. That's it. Its tiny for a big city. As a comparison, Lexington is 285 square miles. But Lexington has 321,000 people living in it and San Francisco has 884,000. So you have a ton of people crammed into a tiny area. This is a large factor that again, doesn't get mentioned when people talk about it.
The Bay Area of course is HUGE. Way more square footage and way more people. But you do not see the same homeless problems in other areas of the Bay Area as you do in San Francisco (although there are some as in any big city area). You won't go to Napa or Sonoma and have to dodge the homeless poop while wine tasting. But, they are MORE liberal areas than San Francisco is.

Its similar in LA. The homeless problem there is real. Its a problem. If you go to downtown LA or parts of Hollywood you will see it everywhere. Its sad and and needs to be dealt with. But Los Angeles County is HUGE. With tons of people. So someone that lives in Pasadena for instance would be considered to live in "LA" by anyone not from California. They might even say that when they are out of town just to make it easier. But when you live in California, you don't say "LA". You say "Pasadena" because that tells a lot more about where you live.

My point is that saying "California has a homeless problem" is so broad and zoomed out that it makes it silly. And even saying, "LA or SF have a homeless problem" is too broad (although far more accurate). Downtown LA and SF proper has a homeless problem. Its real. It needs to be dealt with. And I can assure you that anyone living here knows this far more than someone posting a link on a website.
But living here also gives you far more context.
Downtown San Diego also has a homeless issue. Just like any big city does. But they have dealt with it far better (even though I still believe they have a ways to go). If you go to Gaslamp (as we do a lot) you will see homeless people. If you go to Balboa park you will see them, etc. But they have been able to put policies in place that have worked and they have been able to contain the problem much more than LA and SF. I live 35 min from Downtown SD. And I could live my life every single day for a year and never see a homeless person. This is true for the VAST majority of California.

But in the very populated areas of LA and SF, its a true problem.

Casting it off as "because of liberalism" is far too simplistic.
There are a myriad of reasons why it has exploded in those specific areas:
1. Overpopulation in those areas is #1
2. Weather which draws more people to those areas (before they were homeless)
3. Access to Drugs and Alcohol
4. Social Services that feeds/houses them
5. They make money. TONS of tourists and people who will give them money out of charity. This could be its own thread. But there is a guy who sits outside of a Wal Mart not too far from me. I know his name. I know what kind of car he drives (Toyota Camry). I know the condo he lives in in Carlsbad ($500,000 value). And yet he sits outside and has a sign that says "homeless". Why? Because people still give him money. California is the 11th most "giving state" when it comes to charitable contributions per capita.
6. The problem exploded and now they aren't sure how to fix it. And as someone who has served on a board for years dealing with this exact thing: its not easy. Its nuanced. Its multi-faceted. Its difficult. Many of them don't want help. They don't want to be off the street. Many do. There is just no blanket answer. It deserves its own thread. But its a very very difficult problem to deal with because its an individual one more than anything. And there are just too many homeless in those areas to treat the way it needs to be treated.
I feel for them. Honestly.
I hear people say all the time, "Just throw them all in jail". And this is so shortsighted and misses the point. They don't belong in jail. And jails/prisons are already too populated.
I could go on and on. But just agreeing with what has been said:
1. Yes, its a major problem.
2. Its a major problem for LA and SF to deal with.
3. Its not a problem in the vast majority of California.

Puma, I've agreed with you about across the board, but I disagree it's inaccurate to say "San Fran has a homeless problem" and limit it to just downtown,. b/c its the politics of San Fran causing this debacle, not the population density.

Cali has great weather EVERYWHERE, so why are they all in downtown San fran instead of the rest of the bay area, or in whatever other town?

B/c in San Fran being homeless must be better than being homeless in other Cali places where the weather is just as good. (and in fact it's dang cold in San Fran compared to other places lol).

And of course there we agree b/c after #1 on your list there are lots of things that do exactly that, such as social services, laws that now don't even hassle you for public urination, etc.

But that's on "San fran", b/c they WANT to be that way. They CHOOSE through their ballot box to have this problem, simple as that.

Lexington's is getting worse and we're doing the same thing. In fact it's not the people who live with it who are voting for it. It's the suburban guilt ridden middle class and rich people who want to tell themselves they're doing good deeds who are behind it.

We have big donors here who help the homeless shelters. Great. They donate a tiny percentage of their wealth, put up homeless stuff where I live and work, and they live out on their big fancy horse farms and never, not once, come to the north side of Lexington where they put up these buildings. The people who vote for the city officials who likewise think its a great idea don't ever come here either.

I imagine San fran may have some of the same issues, but honestly the few people from there I know seem to be so back-assward they stand right in the middle of those problems and continue to think the very policies that created them just need to be increased in order to solve them. Good luck with that.


So im with you on 3, 4, and especially #5. Same problem in Lexington btw with #5. I know people who come here for the summer but have homes in Eastern Kentucky and come here just to beg. There's a whole commercial enterprise operating here now just b/c they make so much money begging.

Definitely #6 is true but we disagree about it being nuanced. Sure some small percentage is, but you could turn the mountain into a tiny molehill by addressing insanity and drugs.

now, the cost and willpower to do that is massive, that's tough as nails, but the answer is reopening the state mental hospitals (without the Nurse Ratcheds) and maybe even just warehousing those who insist on being addicts, like a big government run opium den.

I'm not endorsing that, but not sure what else to do b/c I doubt rehab will work. Wish it would, but even most who want rehab and have the means and support system don't make it clean, much less those with none of those things. I won't say that's nuanced, but it is a near impossible nut to crack if the goal is to turn heroin and meth addicts into productive home owning members of society.


But as usual we're basically in agreement. But I do think it's OK to label San Fran on this one given their politics, but no doubt it's very inaccurate to say it's a California problem.

Now the thread on how Cali has ended democracy, that one I'll put on the whole state. ;)

I probably wasn't clear. I didn't mean that from a political perspective. Just a tourist/geography perspective. I was just trying to illustrate just how small geographically the area is where someone would actually see homelessness as a major problem. Its a tiny tiny area. 40 square mile of thousands and thousands.

I will tell you that I think #1 on my list is more prominent than #4. No doubt the social services has played its part in keeping homeless there (more than attracting). But, its the overpopulation that caused it to balloon so quickly.

Btw, an odd side discussion on this is that the social services aspect isn't a liberal agenda per say. Most people on both sides of the aisle tend to be for them. I have many many republican/conservative/Christian friends that volunteer/donate to them.
I honestly think that for a lot of people they simply do not know what to do to fix the problem.
You and I seem to be on the same page with what the major issue is that needs to be dealt with...but even that makes it difficult to know how to fix it.

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/12/...=pocket-newtab