It's obviously both. If you're a heroin addict in West Virginia you just rent a trailer with a revolving list of fellow addicts for like $400 month and you beg or steal enough to get by. Plus, you're in a part of town where nobody is really going to notice you.

That doesn't work in San Francisco.

So did the heroin make you homeless or the high prices? It's kind of a silly question. It's both, in some sense.

That's why we see a direct correlation between the cost of rent and homelessness.

But my question is - if you can't pay rent in LA, what draws you to set up camp in skid row? Why add that burden of living there on top of everything else you're dealing with?

Well, yeah, which is why the people who say addiction isn't a factor at all are being more than a little silly. Rent is a factor, but drug addicts make poor decisions in a crisis, obviously. And it's no coincidence that addicts have a weaker support system; most of them have spent years wearing it thin by the time they hit rock bottom.

Originally, Skid Row was where the railroad tracks ended. Now it is where the social services providers are clustered.

You start with sleeping in your car for "just a little while" until one day the car breaks or you can't renew tag/insurance.

Or your friends get burnt out with the unpaid roommate using resources idea.

Hop skip and jump away from "real" street homelessness.

Been there. Amazed sometimes I made it out because it breaks your brain, just the lack of sleep enough days in a row will make the best minds broken.

Awesome to see that you broke out of that. If you don't mine my asking, did you join a street community in a downtown core, or did you use any social services to help?

Did you meet a lot of people in a similar situation to you on the street?

To add to that, if rent use too high in SF, becoming homeless in SF isn't your only other option. I know plenty of people who thought rent was too high in SF and they moved to other cities rather than onto the street. Further I hear that in Portland 50% of homeless arrive homeless in the city. Doesn't sound like a high rent issue, but an issue with addiction that or severe mental health issues.

I see where you're coming from, but if you go to the extreme and anyone could have a private room for $1 a month, would anyone be living on the streets?

Absolutely yes they would. I know someone in my extended family on the streets - his problem is addiction. Lot's of people are willing to offer a roof.

I know that's anecdata - but you asked about the extreme case.

Yes. Some people just want zero responsibilities and living on the street gives them that. Living in housing always has conditions.

Is it because buildings refuse to house people with addiction problems, or that the extra $1/month is better used in their mind to get the next dose of the substance?

The roof typically comes with the stipulation of no drugs (or even rehab).

That’s untenable to the addict.

The roof also comes with a loss of any sense of personal autonomy and the threat of violence from other people in the shelter.

There's a reason people treat them as a last resort, and it's not drugs. It's that being in a shelter opens you up to abuse.

Unlike the street?

Those conditions make the offering quite different from being able to rent your own room inexpensively. One of the facets of having your own place is that you can do whatever you want there, whether it be drugs or whatever. That might not be healthy, and it's quite understandable why family would put conditions on offering a free room, but people do value their autonomy.

Yes, that’s already the case in some parts of the country with vacant homeless shelters, except they’re not even $1.

Street homelessness is more visible, but it is smaller in scale than those who are living in their car/on a friend's couch.