Interesting Question

It is perplexing that the local houselessness situation improved so significantly a few years ago, and then stabilized, both prior to and concurrently with such significant increases in the rates of houselessness in so many other Communities. Of course, the rate of houselessness increased drastically as a result of the CZU Fire last August, but then stabilized remarkably efficiently as many of the victims, with the assistance of home owners’ insurance, procured at least temporary domestic situations. Many of those who remain houseless as a result of the CZU Fire are living elsewhere temporarily, so are not as visually apparent as the more familiar local houseless.

This unusual improvement of the local rates of houselessness was questioned at my other unrelated blog, in conjunction with commentary regarding the contrary nature of such information, relative to the experiences of other Communities.

This was my reply:

“That is an interesting question that no one seems to have an answer for. The trend did not coincide with trends elsewhere. But of course, the unhoused Community here involves only a few people, so the ‘trends’ that we observe are much more variable than they are in more significant Communities. (For example,) if two people (of the approximately twenty of the unhoused who reside here) happen to procure a domestic situation, regardless (of) actual trends everywhere else, that is 10% of the entire unhoused Community locally. Several years ago, several of the unhoused passed away within only a few years. (. . .) More recently, some relocated for employment, or for available domestic situations. The housed Community here is very generous with helping the unhoused improve their situations. Not only has the situation here improved, but the fake news about it has not been proliferated as rampantly as it had been. A few years ago, the unhoused were blamed by a few haters for ‘everything’ bad that happened here. Society simply does not subscribe to that anymore. We recognize the few haters for who they are. (. . .)”