Where The Homeless Are (And Are Not)

Tyler Durden's picture

With food-stamp recipients dominated by 'working age Americans' for the first time in history; and 1.4 million having recently dropped off the benefits rolls, we suspect, extremely sadly, that the following breakdown of homelessness in America is about to get worse. Los Angeles has by far the greatest number of unsheltered homeless in America and New York City the largest population - at around 65,000 - of homeless people in the US. One wonders at the State of the Union tomorrow...



Via Vizual-Statistix,

The PIT estimates are based on counts of all sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night




Those who are identified as “unsheltered” live in places not meant for human habitation, such as streets, vehicles, parks, campgrounds, abandoned buildings, etc.

In general, the number of homeless people tracks population density, so the upper map shows homeless persons per 1,000 state population.


The top states are HI, NY, CA, and OR, though these are all less than half the per capita tally in DC.


Had I used raw counts of homeless people (without normalizing by population), CA would have had the highest value at 137,000. The next highest counts are NY (77,000) and FL (48,000).


The balance of sheltered and unsheltered is largely influenced by climate; more extreme climates found in the northern and eastern parts of the country have lower percentages of unsheltered homeless people. ND is an exception to this trend – it has approximately 2,000 homeless people, two-thirds of whom are unsheltered.

Data source: https://www.onecpd.info/resource/3031/pit-and-hic-data-since-2007/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
boogerbently's picture

For all their "lip service" about liberal love, CA is the worst at sheltering their homeless.

WayBehind's picture

Who needs shelter when it is 60F in the winter? I lived in SoCal for very long time and the beach is more fun than some shelter in the middle of nowhere :)

Pool Shark's picture



I remember when they did the big 'Homeless March' on DC. They bussed all the homeless to DC from all around the country. Then, when the rally ended, they bussed them all,... er,... home again.


I am more equal than others's picture




The states with the highest homeless rates are democrat strongholds. Gee, democrats care so much, they really, really care.  After the homeless vote for them, then they give the guy the 'bum's rush straight to Buffalo.' 

roadhazard's picture

There should have been no bus to take them back. Leave them in DC and I'll bet there would be some action.

BobPaulson's picture

Especially if they were supplied with small arms.

Tall Tom's picture

There is a homeless man who comes around to sell me Gold. They find it on the Streets, or, in Dumpsters as people throw away Gold in California.


I asked him if he had been spreading the method which I taught him on how to make BOMBS with Lithium Batteries. I showed him the following video on YouTube. He reported that he has told far too many Homeless people.




When you can make BOMBS then who needs a Gun?


If there is anything I can do to help the homeless then I will, you know?

Antifaschistische's picture

BINGO...this "unsheltered" is a disgrace.   It's against zoning laws, all across California for an "unsheltered" individual to build any type of "shelter".   As unfair as it seems, many unshelted would appreciate being able to construct a place to sleep made with 20 pallets and a corrugated roof.  

It's illegal for property owners to "subdivide" their property into affordable small pieces of land.

It's illegal to violate "multi-family" dwelling constraints established by the zoning commissions.

So...it's practically illegal to be homeless, and illegal to build affordable housing.

Southern California has a mild climate and the tool sheds they sell at Home Depot would make a nice living quarter for someone who could gather up a little cash.

too bad...it's illegal to put it up...and it's illegal for you to spend the night in it because it to violates the building codes.   It's absurd.  The fact is, those structures are one of the few where you don't have to worry a bit about an earthquake tearing the place apart.

If you care about homeless...then here's a novel ideal....LET THEM BUILD THEIR OWN HOME!!  BECAUSE THEY WILL IF YOU WILL LET THEM!!


Free Wary's picture

you are complaining about strict zoning "all across california", really? You must be in a different california than me.  I see big houses cut up and subdivided into non-government sanctioned tiny apartments all over the place.

Janice's picture

Antifaschistische, are you on crack? Do you even realize what you are advocating for? I agree that the government building and zoning laws are wack, but have you been to Mexico? Sheets of tin leaning against buildings, scrap wood for dwellings, and tarps for roof and walls. No thanks. I'd rather not not have families living like a third world country. Give the homeless a job building houses for other homeless. If there are sufficient houses, teach them how to plow, pick up trash, mow green ways ...something.

Musashi Miyamoto's picture

--> homeless living in shantytown

--> homeless sleeping in alley next to dumpster

Tall Tom's picture

I'd rather not not have families living like a third world country. Give the homeless a job building houses for other homeless.


It is not about what you would rather have. It is about the homeless not having shelters, you self centered bitch.


Just who is supposed to give these homeless a job when there are many more who are living in homes without jobs? The Government?


I have got some sad news for you.




The Government IS NOT A SOLUTION but is the SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM when it comes down to it. The Government restricts the Homeless from ACTING IN THEIR OWN BEHALF.


If you would rather not SEE families living in Shacks and Shanty Towns like those in a Third World Country then you would ACT to HELP. You will do something about it.


How many homeless are you CURRENTLY SHELTERING. I am neither SHELTERING ANY, nor, do I intend to shelter any. At least I am not hypocritical in my stance.


But, as I wrote a comment yesterday, about another article, in regards to "Community" NOT being an Strategy for surviving the oncoming Financial Trainwreck, your attitude is demonstrative on how people treat the downtrodden today... even during times which are much better than they will be.


I certainly would not want to depend upon a total bitch as yourself as you are a Socialist Dog.


Yes I have a heart. Let them build shelters. That is what Liberty is about.


I am so sorry that it will destroy your illusions about this once great Nation when the fact is that it has DEGENERATED to the point of becoming a Third World Nation.

dontgoforit's picture

Most of these folks have addiction problems or are mentally ill.  They don't live like you and me because they choose their addictive substance over living like you and me, or they are not capable of thinking in a way that improves survival chances. 

Antifaschistische's picture

I do understand your point very well Janice.  Yes, I have been to Mexico, and I've traversed Africa a couple of times.   And I've visited numerous country villages throughout Asia.  None of those places make me happy and I'm humbled that we live in a coutry that appears to free from true poverty.

And, no...I don't want to see shacks built on the front lawns of the homes in San Marino.   But truthfully, "homeless" people don't want to live in San Marino either. 

The whole point is that truly "affordable" housing is illegal.  Not just in California, but all over the US.  Our governments have invaded our lives and told us what kind of foundation we must have on our homes, how they must be framed, what kind of plumbing we must have, how the electrical must work, and on and on and on.   In doing so, we have priced not just the homeless, but all low income earners completely out of the housing market.  60 years ago you could buy a very small "starter" home, on a very small lot, with no garage and very little grass space.  Sorry...not today.  Developers own your politicians....and let's talk about the banks, because homes aren't "affordable" even young couples go into massive debt for their first home.  Cha-ching for the banks and the young families enter debt serfdom.

My point is that our "care" for the homeless and poor is disingenuous.   If we really cared, there's a lot we could change.

Offthebeach's picture

Third gen builder. The house my dad built and I grew up in, and at the time a upper ritzy house, is a illegal house now. Its still a nice house, but the government would not allow it.
I know I can build new, clean, safe but plain houses for a third of present costs, but it would be illegal. Young people, modest couples, fashion challanged would be satisfied.
Building codes, manufacures, tax agencies, snobs and those that don't want price pressure on their government supported priced houses.

Quantum Nucleonics's picture

For a large majority of homeless, their major issue is mental health or substance abuse, or both.  You could build your shantytowns, but unless you sold them for the affordable price of $0 you'd get few takers.

Race Car Driver's picture

They're all from Kansas. They're not homeless. They're marooned.

greatbeard's picture

Congratulations.  On the second post you've already takeing it to a red/blue thing.

onewayticket2's picture

maybe because the blue's strategy - admit it or not - is to create dependency on government.  

they've been at it a long time...the boil has been slow, but look at the last election.....just try to run on a reform ticket of reducing dependency on govt via the principles that made America great....hard work, personal responsibility, liberty and equality of OPPORTUNITY (not equality of OUTCOME as you will hear tonight)

Tall Tom's picture

Maybe it is not a Red Strategy or a Blue Strategy but it is a Government strategy.





Tall Tom's picture

For all their "lip service" about liberal love, CA is the worst at sheltering their homeless.


Is it up to the Government to shelter anyone? Is it up to the Government to prevent people from sheltering themselves.


Fuck you as you are just a Statist Swine, boogerbently.


There are far too many on this website that are Statists. There are at least 48 people who approved of that statement.


I swear that this place is being taken over by the Neocon RINO Socialists and the Democrat Socialists.



Professorlocknload's picture

"CA is the worst at sheltering their homeless."

  Maybe CA is just better at attracting homeless? Good weather, good weed, "liberal" welfare, and for some reason, they are mostly concentrated along the coast.



Big Brother's picture

Those 2000 people in ND either are some of the toughest people on earth, half-yeti, or maybe there's a 2000-person year-to-year turnover rate due to freezing to death.  I just don't see how they'd survive a winter in ND.

cynicalskeptic's picture

Oil field workers in ND - high demand for limited housing.  Lots of people showing up looking for work - and getting it - but without a place to stay.  You've got EMPLOYED people living in campers and plenty in 'barracks' provided by companies.  Motels are full up and rentals costing a lot.

Agstacker's picture

The Walmart parking lot in Williston was always full of campers and people living in their vehicle, making good money but noplace to live.

Billy Sol Estes's picture

We had drifters in the Haynesville-Bossier a year or so ago. Tiny towns of less than 10k pop. building Holiday Inns and mobile home camps sprouting up near drill sites. Some got wise that when the rush ends your Holiday Inn will shit the bed but you can just sell or roll out your mobile homes...

quasimodo's picture

Damn, feel bad for those in ND. That is some hard country, here in IA it sucks bad enough but I can't imagine going another mile north this time of year.

Quantum Nucleonics's picture

It's an anomaly.  Almost all are probably workers in the oil and gas industry.  They make great money, but live in camps because there isn't enough housing.

fonzannoon's picture

I was in Times Square area yesterday. As I walked through the streets to where I was going, I was approached by a few homeless people. There were no cops in sight at the time (they were all in one area setting up for the idiocracy bowl). They (homeless) were incredibly polite. I am 5'9 175lbs. The people who came up to me asking for money were all bigger than me. It was fucking freezing and they were clearly not living in ideal conditions. I was fascinated that they did not just decide that the easier course of action, and more fruitful, should they be succesful, would be to just rob me. At some point I am pretty sure they will.

suteibu's picture

The beggar has more respect than the thief.  The beggar is humble, the thief has no control over his ego.

tempo's picture

Jesus would be a progressive with the rich supporting the poor. But Jesus lived in Peter's home for free. Jesus never encouraged anyone to work or get a job since the Kingdom was at hand and material goods are not needed in the Kingdom. Tell that to the freezing homeless!!

fonzannoon's picture

Jesus..I like him very much, but he no help with curveball.

Harry Dong's picture

If Jesus was Jewish, why does he have a Puerto Rican name?

Ness.'s picture

"...You said it man, nobody fucks with the Jesus."


<someone had to post the clip>



q99x2's picture

Jesus was not Jewish. Yes he could trace his name to Abraham but when God formed him Mary was a surrogate. God used divine genes to come to earth.

And I can tell you this divine genes do not include a sense of humor. Even when he complained about the time he had to put up living with people, he did not intend that to be funny. We see humor in it because we see ourselves in other people not in Jesus.

And, I can tell you this too. He is not one to argue with or even have a two way conversation with. He has a unique communications system in that he speaks through the sub-atomic particles that make up your entire substance. That is why he is often referred to as the Word. You will know when you "hear" him.

When the word was written it quickly spread and became technology. Through union with our physical manifestation, by being read, Plato's technology became intertwined with the Word of God.

The NSA should not interfere with God.

Ghordius's picture

does your faith have a name/denomination? just curious

Dixie Rect's picture

Roses are reddish, violets are blueish. If it wasn't for Jesus, we'd all be Jewish.

dontgoforit's picture

You are correct.  You do 'know' when he lets you know; and you see when you ask to be 'unblinded.'  Care of your brother does not mean you give all you have so that those who won't/can't provide for themselves are adequately provided for while you youself then become dependant.  We are all dependant on God; whether we admit that to anyone or not - it is The truth.  NSA breaking every rule.  Blowback is hell.

suteibu's picture

No...Jesus would not be a progressive.  Nor would Buddha whose life was similar to Jesus'.   They both admonished people to save themselves if they could.  But such words only mean something to those who are in this world but not of this world.  And, apparently, that is possible for all people.

Dr. Engali's picture

Jesus certainly would not have been a progressive. His lessons were about how we should live our lives and treat one another. He taught about charity towards each other, not through the force of an overbearing thuggish state. If anything Jesus would have been a libertarian, because of his disdain for the 600+ laws that the Pharisees and the sadducees put in place on how people were supposed to act that seperated them from God. His followers were admonished for picking grains of wheat to feed themselves as the walked through the wheat fields on the sabbath for cripes sake. He believed in keeping it pretty simple, after all what good is it to try and be perfect if you're always in violation if the law?

Edit: for the record , the Pharisees were the liberals of the time period, and the Sadducees were the conservatives. Jesus criticized both groups because of their hypocrisy.

Unpopular Truth's picture

Was it Jesus who said "neither a lender nor a borrower be?" Imagine a world without debt!

Dr. Engali's picture

No he never said that,at least that which we know of, but he did not like how the money changers preyed in the poor. But that is hardly a liberal or progressive issue. Nobody cares for the actions of money changers.