Homelessness has plagued American cities and states for decades now. But the problem involves more than simply large numbers of homeless people in urban and rural areas. The simple statistics do not nuance the issue clearly enough. In order to shed more light on the problem, the amount of homelessness in rich and poor areas should be compared. California provides a helpful case study and shows that in poor areas homelessness increases while in the rich areas it remains at a lower level.
According to Ridley-Thomas in an article in The Sacramento Bee (2016), “In San Francisco, nearly 7,000 people go without a home every night, despite the city spending about $250 million a year on homelessness.” This at first glance suggests that the urban areas have more homelessness than other areas like the rural parts of California. This is a proper conclusion, based on other data that shows the increase of homelessness in cities across California (Kidsdata.org). However, urban does not mean rich. Rich people do reside in the cities of California, but that does not mean that these people dominate the urban places. A visit to Hollywood will actually show that despite the glamor of a few neighborhoods, much of the community lies in ruins and even includes homeless communities. The point is that the urban does not mean that cities lack a homeless population. Rich and poor occupy the cities and the latter is what must be distinguished in this comparison.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Homelessness in California".
The overall correlation of an area’s monetary flow and homelessness does not create a pattern on the state level. California boasts of the sixth largest economy in the entire world. Yet, according to Ridley-Thomas (2016) and, secondarily, Kidsdata.org (2016), the state also includes “115,000 men, women and children who are homeless and lack basic human services.” In the urban areas, then, the homeless are surrounded by people with money. The exchange of money and the overall wealth of an area does not necessarily mean that little homelessness exists there. Have distinguished between the urban and rich and rural and poor, what else can be said about comparing homelessness in these areas?
In the first place, homelessness in the rural areas often arises less from mental illness and more from natural disasters or domestic exile. People are kicked out of their homes and put in the countryside or something like a wild fire will blaze through an area and destroy the homes of people. These issues in the rural areas sometimes correlate to poverty but not always. They relate more to disasters among people and nature. In the second place, the urban homelessness often arises from mental illness. Many of the people on the streets of California, without a home, possess some sort of mental problem that has left them incapable of maintaining a job or earning income and thereby on the streets. Health issues often distance people from their families and so leave them without a support system. However, homeless people in the urban areas often have more support and systems funded by the city or state that will help them.
In all, homelessness differs in its causes in rural and urban areas. It also differs in the level of support that is provided through formal efforts funded by the people or the government. The most important distinction is that among poor people, not necessarily rural, homelessness rises. Among the rich, not necessarily the urban, the rates of homelessness decline. Regardless of the causes or the context, homelessness across the world but especially in California constitutes a major problem for the people of this world.
- Ridley-Thomas, Mark. “California is in a Homeless Crisis.” The Sacramento Bee. 23 August 2016. Web.
- Kidsdata.org. Lucile Richards Foundation for Children’s Health. 2016. Web.
