Social Can homeless people be fined for sleeping outside? A rural Oregon city asks the US Supreme Court

[Madmick]

He's trying to twist evidence to suit a prior held belief. From later in the article he got the graph from:
"The other claim we often hear in homelessness discourse is that homelessness is being driven by progressive policies, which, like weather, serve as magnets for the homeless. But if this claim were true, wouldn’t the places with the most generous welfare benefits have the most homelessness? But yet again, the data shows no link:"

As has been repeatedly explained, the strongest correlation and causation link homelessness and root causes is housing. Period. Anything else isn't even close in impact. Limiting housing isn't a progressive position, it's a NIMBY and selfish position held by people of all political stripes. Notice how your support earlier in this thread is literally grounded in NIMBY principles (As long as I don't see the homeless in my life, I don't care whose problem they are)

The author of the article is an imbecile; one of those blind little mice I mentioned. He opens with the assertion that only 1/3rd of homeless have a drug problem, citing a single study, when past studies have indicated that around 2/3 have lifetime alcohol and drug problems. Many studies have been done on this. A recent one from UCSF showed that 45% report drug and alcohol abuse. Tons of studies. Don't know why he's lowballing.

https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/CASPEH_Report_62023.pdf

No, housing isn't the isn't the sole root cause, LMFAO. Portland went to extraordinary lengths in the last two decades to provide free or low-cost housing to the homeless: through bond measures, or permanent free/subsidied supportive housing complexes like Findley Commons. Proponents of this approach insist it is empirically proven to be the "most effective" way to address homelessness. Of course, they don't measure this by whether or not it reduces the total number of homeless in a community, or the proportion of homelessness, but by the likelihood those who were homeless that received housing inside a 6-year window are more likely to remain...housed. I shit you not. That's the logic.

There are even groups outside of government [2] trying to aid this effort. Know what has happened? Their homeless population skyrocketed, anyway. Indeed, Portland, a city of just 650K, spent over $1.7bn on supporting housing programs alone from 2015-2023, and yet their homeless population increased 65%. Surprise, surprise. When you build houses just to feel good about yourself at extraordinary expense to everyone who pays for their own housing...you don't actually address the "root cause".

Obviously, anyone intelligent understands the cause of homelessness is more complicated, and results from a set of conditions and policies. These include decisions about policing, drug use, mental health, criminal sentencing & detainment, housing support, welfare, food assistance, immigration, and so on. The warmth of weather & populations are a factor. Because it's not simple, or if it were so simple, one might wonder why it's all blue states that have this expensive housing that we're so worked up about (when a linear correlation to GDP per capita isn't mirrored there).

 

[HereticBD]

Why in God's name would somebody spend money on heroin when they can get fentanyl for a fraction of the price, on any corner with way higher potency.

Again , nobody's doing heroin. You have 0 clue what your talking about and everybody can tell.

Isn't Fentynal more of a cutting agent, though?

 

[lifelessheap]

- I dont have the corage to destroy the tents of the homeless. People that already have nothing!
It's abusrd that.

What next? A execution squad?

Man.. I watched it all go to hell. Took my daughter to a playground and and a homeless man, 6'6" with crazy red hair holding a two liter bottle of orange soda and in the other hand a knife.


Yeesh, California became hell in a decade.

 

[avenue94]

A recent one from UCSF showed that 45% report drug and alcohol abuse. Tons of studies. Don't know why he's lowballing.

OK, so if drug abuse is a root cause of homelessness, why do we not see even a modest correlation between states with higher overdose rates and homelessness?

Of course, they don't measure this by whether or not it reduces the total number of homeless in a community, or the proportion of homelessness, but by the likelihood those who were homeless that received housing inside a 6-year window are more likely to remain...housed. I shit you not. That's the logic.

I mean...that's literally the argument. Eliminating the housing problem for individuals provides a better base for treatment, finding a job, medical care, etc. You're also ignoring that the cost of housing has exploded in Portland since the 2000s and that a looking at a list of the metro areas with the fastest increases in housing prices are heavily correlated with homeless rates.

These include decisions about policing, drug use, mental health, criminal sentencing & detainment, housing support, welfare, food assistance, immigration, and so on.

I'm curious how you think policing would reduce homelessness?

Because it's not simple, or if it were so simple, one might wonder why it's all blue states that have this expensive housing that we're so worked up about (when a linear correlation to GDP per capita isn't mirrored there).

There's a pretty simple answer. Most states with serious homeless populations utterly failed in recent decades to maintain adequate housing stock. In California, it started decades ago, so it's about as bipartisan a problem you'll find in the state. For example, it's very obvious Prop 13 reduced housing stock and by extension increased homelessness to a minor degree, but Prop 13 Is about as sacred a GOP tenet as any in California.

 

[Madmick]

OK, so if drug abuse is a root cause of homelessness, why do we not see even a modest correlation between states with higher overdose rates and homelessness?

What a asinine cartwheel to look past the obvious. If drug use isn't a root cause of homelessness, then why does no other common denominator of behavior correlate more strongly to homelessness? When 1/3-2/3 of all those who are homeless are drug abusers, yes, you have a profound correlation. It is by far the most dominant correlation.

I mean...that's literally the argument. Eliminating the housing problem for individuals provides a better base for treatment, finding a job, medical care, etc. You're also ignoring that the cost of housing has exploded in Portland since the 2000s and that a looking at a list of the metro areas with the fastest increases in housing prices are heavily correlated with homeless rates.

I'm curious how you think policing would reduce homelessness?

There's a pretty simple answer. Most states with serious homeless populations utterly failed in recent decades to maintain adequate housing stock. In California, it started decades ago, so it's about as bipartisan a problem you'll find in the state. For example, it's very obvious Prop 13 reduced housing stock and by extension increased homelessness to a minor degree, but Prop 13 Is about as sacred a GOP tenet as any in California.

Blah blah blah. An increase in housing support has no correlation, since you love that concept so much, to a correlation in a decline in homelessness. In fact, the opposite is frequently observed.

 

[avenue94]

If drug use isn't a root cause of homelessness, then why does no other common denominator of behavior correlate more strongly to homelessness?

What's the r2 of dug use by state and homeless rates? This is easy to calculate.

When 1/3-2/3 of all those who are homeless are drug abusers, yes, you have a profound correlation. It is by far the most dominant correlation.

I don't think you understand what correlation means if you are concluding that drug use is significantly correlated with homelessness based on only looking at the rate of drug abuse among the population.

Blah blah blah. An increase in housing support has no correlation, since you love that concept so much, to a correlation in a decline in homelessness. In fact, the opposite is frequently observed.

Which is why I've argued that the top priority to reducing homelessness is reducing the cost of housing as housing support is a temporary stopgap. The correlation between housing supply and costs and homelessness is pretty damn hard to refute.

 

[Madmick]

What's the r2 of dug use by state and homeless rates? This is easy to calculate.

Who cares? Estimating or extrapolating drug use is irrelevant. You assume a linear correlation between these estimations and homelessness, but what you fail to acknowledge is that by far the most profound correlation to homelessness itself is drug use. How do you explain that away?

I don't think you understand what correlation means if you are concluding that drug use is significantly correlated with homelessness based on only looking at the rate of drug abuse among the population.

No, clearly you don't understand correlation. This is correlation of habit/behavior, not general incidence. I'm not attributing immediate causation, after all.

 

[avenue94]

Who cares? Estimating or extrapolating drug use is irrelevant. You assume a linear correlation between these estimations and homelessness, but what you fail to acknowledge is that by far the most profound correlation to homelessness itself is drug use. How do you explain that away?

You're arguing out of one side of your mouth that the correlation between homeless and drug use is profound but out of the other side you're arguing that the literal measure for correlation and strength of correlation is irrelevant?

Do is it that you don't know what r2 is or don't know how to calculate it? You went to college, surely you had abasic stats class?

 

[Madmick]

You're arguing out of one side of your mouth that the correlation between homeless and drug use is profound but out of the other side you're arguing that the literal measure for correlation and strength of correlation is irrelevant?

Do is it that you don't know what r2 is or don't know how to calculate it? You went to college, surely you had abasic stats class?

LOL, you are so incredibly self-impressed with your capability to grasp a rudimentary sociological argument, and yet, you fail to comprehend the most basic counterargument rooted in a far more immediate statistic. To put it another way, if it was only an absence of affordable housing that drove homelessness, then why would the homeless population exhibit such an astronomically disproportionate rate of severe drug abuse relative to the general population (because everyone is affected) by whatever cross-section of society you might choose to focus? As those studies have demonstrated, pertaining to the relevant individuals, drug abuse overwhelmingly preceded their homelessness, it wasn't homelessness that drove them to it.

 

[avenue94]

LOL, you are so incredibly self-impressed with your capability to grasp a rudimentary sociological argument, and yet, you fail to comprehend the most basic counterargument rooted in a far more immediate statistic. To put it another way, if it was only an absence of affordable housing that drove homelessness, then why would the homeless population exhibit such an astronomically disproportionate rate of severe drug abuse relative to the general population (because everyone is affected) by whatever cross-section of society you might choose to focus? As those studies have demonstrated, pertaining to the relevant individuals, drug abuse overwhelmingly preceded their homelessness, it wasn't homelessness that drove them to it.

1. What's the drug abuse rate for the normal population, which is arguably more likely to non report their use due to social stigma and jobs, etc?
2. Drug abuse had many latent factors, there's more compelling evidence that homeleness excaberstes these conditions and mental health issues for that matter.
3. You keep ignoring the basic stats here. There is no correlation between drug use or drug overdoses by state and homelessness. That West Virginia has sky high rates of both buy lower homeless rates blows a huge hole in your argument. Either the correlation isn't there or somehow WV is overreporting drug use while California underreports its drug use...for some reason.

 

[Madmick]

1. What's the drug abuse rate for the normal population, which is arguably more likely to non report their use due to social stigma and jobs, etc?
2. Drug abuse had many latent factors, there's more compelling evidence that homeleness excaberstes these conditions and mental health issues for that matter.
3. You keep ignoring the basic stats here. There is no correlation between drug use or drug overdoses by state and homelessness. That West Virginia has sky high rates of both buy lower homeless rates blows a huge hole in your argument. Either the correlation isn't there or somehow WV is overreporting drug use while California underreports its drug use...for some reason.

No, you keep ignoring the counterargument that implodes your 'primary driver' correlation nonsense.

Drug use? Could be answered a dozen ways for a dozen drugs at a dozen different times. Know what researchers found who actually tested the hair of homeless women when inquiring about cocaine abuse early here in the 21st century? 49% of them had abused the drug. Even the NCDAS, which always takes the high estimate, puts the "normal" population's rate of us at 14%.

So, yeah, you're in a bit of a pickle. Might actually have to think for yourself for once instead of regurgitate a bunch of partisan talking points.

 

[avenue94]

No, you keep ignoring the counterargument that implodes your 'primary driver' correlation nonsense.

Drug use? Could be answered a dozen ways for a dozen drugs at a dozen different times. Know what researchers found who actually tested the hair of homeless women when inquiring about cocaine abuse early here in the 21st century? 49% of them had abused the drug. Even the NCDAS, which always takes the high estimate, puts the "normal" population's rate of us at 14%.

So, yeah, you're in a bit of a pickle. Might actually have to think for yourself for once instead of regurgitate a bunch of partisan talking points.

The partisan talking point known as basic stats? I didn't realize expecting some statistical form of correlation was partisan. Go figure.

 

[Madmick]

The partisan talking point known as basic stats? I didn't realize expecting some statistical form of correlation was partisan. Go figure.

Concession accepted.

 

[avenue94]

Concession accepted.

Yeah you got me there, I believe in basic stats.

 

[Madmick]

Yeah you got me there, I believe in basic stats.

The problem is you're too dense to comprehend them, or their limitations. You cling to one stat, yet you can't explain another that disrupts its inherent logical assumption. The same is true for your initial link, and cities that subsidized housing steeply that didn't see a reduction in homelessness like Portland.

 

[avenue94]

The problem is you're too dense to comprehend them, or their limitations. You cling to one stat, yet you can't explain another that disrupts its inherent logical assumption. The same is true for your initial link, and cities that subsidized housing steeply that didn't see a reduction in homelessness like Portland.

Again, home prices exploded in Portland, which tracks with homelessness. And the one stat you keep ducking is literally the stat for correlation. How dense do you have to be to argue that drug abuse is the main cause of homelessness but be unable to explain why the actual value of correlation is so low.

 

[Madmick]

Again, home prices exploded in Portland, which tracks with homelessness. And the one stat you keep ducking is literally the stat for correlation. How dense do you have to be to argue that drug abuse is the main cause of homelessness but be unable to explain why the actual value of correlation is so low.

Drug abuse is staggering among the homeless population, and wildly disproportionate to the general population both before and after homelessness is realized even adjusting for housing costs. You haven't even attempted to explain that correlation.

Furthermore, housing costs have increased everywhere. The national average increase from 2015-2023 was 36%. Portland only outpaced this at 46%. Yet, again, Portland's homeless population increased a whopping 65% during this time despite the massive state (and private) expenditures into supportive housing. Its increase in homelessness isn't at all proportional to the increase in housing prices relative to the average, and this is true in many of the blue stronghold states/metros. Perhaps you need to look over your charts again with a fresh set of eyes less biased by partisan blindness. Consider that poverty may be broadly correlated to higher rates of theft, but that doesn't mean poverty is what causes people to steal.

The fact is the common denominator that most profoundly yokes the homeless, by an overwhelming ratio, is their habitual drug use, not some incidental coefficient loosely correlated to the cost of their geographical housing price averages.

 

[avenue94]

Drug abuse is staggering among the homeless population, and wildly disproportionate to the general population both before and after homelessness is realized even adjusting for housing costs.

As is the rate of having two legs and two arms, which is strongly correlated with homelessness. Do you have a link to homeless rates after adjusting for housing costs?It's

Furthermore, housing costs have increased everywhere. The national average increase from 2015-2023 was 36%. Portland only outpaced this at 46%.

It's increased far more than that, unless you're doing CAGR?

Its increase in homelessness isn't at all proportional to the increase in housing prices relative to the average, and this is true in many of the blue stronghold states/metros

And yet here you are arguing that homeless is linked to drug use despite West Virginia and California's homeless rates being disproportional to drug metrics.

erhaps you need to look over your charts again with a fresh set of eyes less biased by partisan blindness.

Not sure what partisan blindness you refer to given my stance on homelessness is mostly economics and not ideological.

The fact is the common denominator that most profoundly yokes the homeless, by an overwhelming ratio, is their habitual drug use, not some incidental coefficient loosely correlated to the cost of their geographical housing price averages.

The most common factor is being unable to afford housing, with contributing factors such as addiction, mental health issues, etc. I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why drug use rates by state are not correlated to homeless rates. Do you wanna try or are you going to keep whining that r2 doesn't matter because you don't basic math?

 

[djacobox372]

As is the rate of having two legs and two arms, which is strongly correlated with homelessness. Do you have a link to homeless rates after adjusting for housing costs?It's

It's increased far more than that, unless you're doing CAGR?

And yet here you are arguing that homeless is linked to drug use despite West Virginia and California's homeless rates being disproportional to drug metrics.

Not sure what partisan blindness you refer to given my stance on homelessness is mostly economics and not ideological.

The most common factor is being unable to afford housing, with contributing factors such as addiction, mental health issues, etc. I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why drug use rates by state are not correlated to homeless rates. Do you wanna try or are you going to keep whining that r2 doesn't matter because you don't basic math?

Correlation does not prove causation.

While housing is definitely a factor, you can't discount the fact that urban centers, especially wealthy liberal urban centers, are where resources for the homeless exist most (shelters, soup kitchens, health centers, hand-outs from bleeding hearts, drugs, etc. ).

There's also the gray area where drug or alcohol addiction may not have caused the person to become homeless, but it ultimately causes them to REMAIN homeless.

 

[avenue94]

Correlation does not prove causation.

While housing is definitely a factor, you can't discount the fact that urban centers, especially wealthy liberal urban centers, are where resources for the homeless exist most (shelters, soup kitchens, health centers, hand-outs from bleeding hearts, drugs, etc. ).

There's also the gray area where drug or alcohol addiction may not have caused the person to become homeless, but it ultimately causes them to REMAIN homeless.

Homelessness exists plenty outside of urban centers. I've yet to hear anything as correlated or compelling as to cause homelessness aside from housing access.

Ans yes, I agree on the drusg and alcohol part. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to treat these afflictions without housing the person first. Not you, but people have watched too many movies and think kicking a drug or alcohol addiction can be done by just going cold turkey and then the person will be able to hold down a job and get housing. Which is just not reality.