Ask HN: Why don't homeless people from SF move to another city?

I volunteer at a homeless shelter for the last 10 years.

* people can be mentally ill in some way or another.

* physical disabilities.

* just acceptance that this is their fate, why change it.

* they just can't see any plan that leads them out of the situation so why try

* they wouldn't be sure how to function in society if they re-enter as a member of the "working class".

As a country, I don't feel we do anywhere enough for not just the homeless, but those that are simply down on their luck. Some people just need guidance and advice.

Example: I am a foster parent of 2.

The birth parents don't know how to cook, pay bills, take care of babies, etc. But do classes exist that make them practice and practice and practice. No. I've tried to get cooking classes like this offered saying I'll pay for all the food and donate my time but nobody takes me up on it. If we can teach who are inexperienced at cooking and house keeping and personal hygiene they may stand a chance of improving their lives by believing in themselves. What a bootstrap.

Maybe my perception is wrong and education doesn't help either. I feel like it would.

1. The weather in San Francisco is nice (so you won't freeze to death).

2. The laws are friendlier towards homeless people.

3. San Francisco is liberal, so the people will be friendlier on average to the homeless.

4. America's public transport systems are terrible, but you can go quite a distance on BART and the city buses and it's easy enough to ride for free.

5. If you're stuck begging in order to live, better to beg from rich people.

If you're homeless in America, it doesn't get much better than this.

Well, you can put this same question to most of the larger cities on the West Coast, and the answers are pretty similar: 1) Decent weather: Most west coast cities have fairly mild weather, so you most likely wont freeze to death. 2) Lack of law enforcement: Most cities on the West Coast have taken a hands off approach to most of the homeless, so no need to worry about getting arrested. 3) Drugs: I'm gonna guess it's easy to get drugs here, being closer to Mexico where a lot of it comes from. 4) Sent there: A lot of other states/cities have been putting their homeless on buses to these areas with one way tickets. They are told either go to jail there, or go to $west_coast_city and not jail.

Not a stupid question.

The problem is that a lack of money is but a proximate, and not the ultimate, cause of the homelessness. For something like 85% of those on the streets of SF, the issue is mental or physical disabilities (I'm gonna be generous and classify a penchant for antisocial behavior as a 'mental disability') or substance problems that directly impact the ability to have a job and a dwelling or any sort of normal life.

If you are in that position, finding a warm-ish place with a well-developed support infrastructure for vagrancy as well as proximity to a wealthy population for panhandling from is a really good deal.

When you are broke, live on the street (which is a very tough life everywhere in the world), and possibly fight with mental illness or addiction, moving to a more affordable place (which will still be unaffordable for you, esp. in California) won't magically solve your problems. Without the right support, it will be difficult to find your way back to a normal life.

From a family member of mine who is heavily involved with the homeless community in his city, some activities of life are made up of 5-10 separate steps, any of which may take days or weeks to complete.

The first problem in the OP's question would be just having the funds to go to another city.

Once you arrive and are looking for a job, you will need a permanent address/place to stay and probably a bank account of some sort. In order to get those things you likely need proper identification and/or work history.

Some forms of identification might require additional documentation like social security card or birth certificate. If you don't have those you will need to make multiple trips to various offices to acquire them and they often have fees associated with them.

But don't forget that if you were born in another state and need a birth certificate you have to work with that state over the phone to acquire them.

Plus where will they send them when you may not have a mailing address.

Completing the entire list of items with no problems is time consuming, difficult, and if any of them fail the entire process grinds to a halt.

It's got nothing to do with the possibility of getting a job and affording a normal life. Most homeless people just want to be left alone. Mild weather and lower rates of confrontation make cities like SF ideal.

Another reason many unhoused people don’t want to move is that they have some family, friends, or existing support systems in the area. Moving away would mean they no longer have these resources.

Would you want to move away from your friends and family when you have little else? Some food for thought.

Not a stupid question to think on. You should consider offering a burger or a coffee to a homeless and ask them this question - you'll hear a more realistic answer.

In addition to other pertinent points being made here:

1. People who have lived someplace a long time and love that place may not want to leave. They may want to try to resolve their problems where they are.

2. Once you are homeless, relocating can be extremely challenging. You may not have the money to pay for bus or train tickets, you may have no means to line up a job elsewhere first, etc.

3. Big cities are where the services are. If you are completely destitute, being in a big city can help you stay fed and clothed.

So it only makes sense to leave the big city if you have some unearned income that will go further if you live someplace cheaper. If you are unemployed and destitute with no prospects, the big is a better answer than a small town because you can at least get a free meal regularly.

A few reasons:

1. Weather in most northern states will cause death

2. Transportation for poor doesn't exist in the US

3. If one can't find jobs in SF, forget about being able to find them in Tulsa. Reasons vary from number of employers, lack of transportation, lack of education, felony record, divorces/child support.

I think the easiest way for someone to imagine this would be to think os the US as a dense jungle. The bounty is plentiful but there are death traps everywhere. Only the death traps are man made.

You need to find the patch of this jungle where you are likely to survive. Which means living under a rock in region A is better than dying in a barren desert in region B.

You can dig up periodic articles where many cities have a policy of shipping homeless people out of their city to others where there are "more" services - and ignoring there are more services often because there are more homeless. I have a feeling the California cities are more often the destination of such policies than the originators. (Though I know LA for example does allocate budget to rounding up homeless and moving them around the city too).

A lot of homeless I’ve spoken to in sf are from sf or have lived there a long time before being priced out of their home, and don’t have family or friends who can help them, or just don’t want to leave the only place they know well.

There are a lot of reasons. Moving can be expensive, and they probably have no idea what they’d be moving into. I also knew one homeless person who stuck to a major city because he knew he’d have continued access to money, food and drugs in good weather. I don’t blame him for that decision because he didn’t have a lot of other options due to mental illness.

I think the premise of your question is wrong - you assume that homeless in SF would prefer to be or not be homeless in another city, I would actually ask the question as “what makes SF so appealing as a homeless person” or “what is it about San Francisco that creates/allows so many homeless people”

Many homeless are that way due to situations in their life beyond their control. Mental illness, physical disabilities, age, ect. Most people that do not have these problems could fairly easily get an entry level job and scrape by until they can get back on their feet.

Most are too sick/debilitated to move around searching for better places to live. And in the move they risk losing all (including their lives), because living on the streets is a real risky bet.

I think most of them have fallen so low already that they are unable to pull themselves up any more.

The solution, of course, would be to not let people fall that low. Provide them with some minimal housing and food BEFORE they become drug addicts.

But hey, apparently that’s a waste of money and for communists.