I agree with you. And look, Count shows Austin's homeless population grew a lot from 2017-2020
Same paper, a year earlier. They reported, among other things:
- 11% increase in homeless, 2020 from 2019
- 45% increase in # of unsheltered homeless people, same span
- 20% drop in sheltered homeless people, same span
- 7% increase in housed people from 2018-2020
- 25% increase in same from 2016-2020
- highest # of homless, lowest # of sheltered since 2011
Now, it's very possible that these numbers aren't true measures of increase, just a snapshot, as the pro-homeless advocacy official said: “We’re not reporting that there is a 45% increase in unsheltered homelessness in our community. I want to make that really clear,” Mollica said. “The PIT count will tell you that that’s what happened when we counted folks in one night. But ECHO doesn’t believe that from (the) 2019 to 2020 PIT count we’ve seen an increase in 45% of unsheltered homelessness in our community.”
Fair enough, but that's the point, and that's your point, and I agree. In other words, they have no fucking clue as to how many homeless exist, or even how many more (or less) have entered this city since the camping allowance went into effect. All of these numbers are dice rolls.
And again, another quote from an ECHO exec: “So, is homelessness increasing in Austin or are we actually getting a more accurate count? We think that we’re getting a more accurate count of the existing homeless population,” she said.
You think? But you really don't know, do you? You base your conclusion on running out one night and taking a head count? Don't think that's gonna cut it.
The answer is, we really don't know. And with the camping ordinance lifted, it's very possible that the "one night count" crowd missed some spots.
But even if it's true that the camping allowance didn't cause a huge rush into town (but I absolutely believe it caused an increase in the population, no question in my mind), that's not the point. The point is that the homeless shouldn't have been allowed to plop down almost wherever they felt like it. So whether it fostered an increase or not, that's a secondary issue. The real issue is much of the city was starting to look like the worst parts of New Delhi, or even worse, San Francisco. That's the reason the ban won in a landslide. The rest really is academic.