Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Sure, some number of such people surely exist, but do we have a particular reason to believe that it's actually a significant number

I would say, because places with affordable housing have far less homelessness. And while correlation is not causation the correlation is very compelling right now.

I can't say how many homeless people are mentally ill but stable people who lost their housing but I will say this. Every mentally ill person that experiences bouts of psychosis and whom doesn't have a strong support network is one missed dose, one lost job, one episode away from homelessness.



Places with affordable housing is a synonym for rural areas without government services (or drug dealers).

The best place to be homeless is Seattle or SF because drug use and dealing is legal (or at least not enforced), and there are plenty of shelters/other support services. Thats why Portland puts homeless people on buses to Seattle.

Based on the polling it seems likely the rule of law will be reestablished in Seattle after the next council election, so it will be an interesting way to see if affordable housing was the true cause of the issue.


> Places with affordable housing is a synonym for rural areas without government services (or drug dealers).

I may be misreading this, but it sounds like you're saying rural areas don't have drug dealers? If so, that's patently false. Rural substance abuse rates are generally within 5% of urban abuse rates. They certainly aren't picking up that meth from the local grocery story.


It may not. Just because these people disappear does not mean we fixed the cause. It may simply be that they are housed out of sight in jail or prison.

Also there are many cities that don't have housing affordability crises so no I'm not talking exclusively about rural areas.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: