If you go to the actual report[1] instead of whatever this site is, you'll see that question (3.9) was asking where they lived before they moved to Vancouver, not before they became homeless or whatever that site is attempting to imply.

If you scroll down slightly (3.11) you'll see 81% of respondents had a home in Vancouver before they became homeless, which is the data to match the claim ("overwhelmingly people who had stable living situations in those comfortable locations, and became homeless there").

[1] https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-homeless-count-2019...

So they moved to Vancouver, had a home for a year, then become homeless. The news article did not claim that the homeless respondents were homeless before they moved; simply that they are not local to Vancouver.

If you become homeless after 6 months of moving, you weren't financially stable to begin with.

EDIT: It's a moot point anymore. The fact is, they are in Vancouver and are homeless. We should help them regardless of where they came from.

> If you become homeless after 6 months of moving, you weren't financially stable to begin with.

This might shock you, but the majority of people right now are not financially stable.

> So they moved to Vancouver, had a home for a year, then become homeless

Where are you getting this from?

The point is that it has nothing to do with warmth. Read the thread.