There is a very very strong correlation between homelessness in a state and housing prices, far more than any other factor:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Qz9GvoPbnFwGrHHQB/visible-ho...
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Qz9GvoPbnFwGrHHQB/visible-ho...
There's also a strong correlation between homeless people and parking garage density.
Housing prices are high where there are people. People are homeless where there are people. It comes with the territory. Throw in amazing weather and states bussing their homeless to CA and it becomes a very attractive proposition for someone without a home.
If there was a correlation then sending the homeless to Arkansas would solve the problem, but it wouldn't. They'd just be homeless in the woods.
There are always more homeless people in the city than in tiny rural towns, because the homeless people in the tiny rural towns move toward the city or get chased out.
It's also true that there are numbers of people in those far rural communities that would end up quite homeless if you forced them into the city. Imagine someone on social security living in a dilapidated trailer on some worthless piece of land.
And also homeless people, even the mentally ill and drug addicted are not stupid. They will go where they get the least hassle and the most benefit. And it's widely known that California is the place to be.
Evidence for this claim?
Population density and price don't directly correlate. I'm sure you can think of some expensive low density areas.
Shipping people to lower cost of living locations can be a fix, especially if they have family nearby. It's very hard to afford some locations without a high pay job.