To put actual numbers to "way more likely". Using https://www.bayareaequityatlas.org/indicators/experiencing-h... and the census.

The rate is 42/10k for non-Hispanic White and 56/10k for all others - a common definition for people of color. So about a third more likely.

To provide some intuition if the numbers aren't clear that increased risk is about the same as:

* driving while having slept 6-7 hours rather than 7+ hours[0] 1.3x

* being a teen driver with a teen friend in the car rather than alone[1] 1.49x

* the increased cardiovascular risk from being highly sedentary vs. being active[2] 1.3x

As a whole, though, 'person of color' seems to be a bad grouping unit here because Asian people are 'people of color' and have a 7/10k rate, while Black people are also 'people of color' and have a 214/10k rate. Therefore, if I were trying to understand if there are subpopulation differences this is not the aggregation unit I would use.

0: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bulletin/2017/national-police-week...

1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10735394/

2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38081421/

So let's say hypothetically we kept the number of homeless people stable in Oakland, but made them all white. You think all (most? many?) of the people currently complaining about homelessness would shut up?

The way you've stated this implies a structurally-enforced causality with regards to vagrancy in such a way that, wittingly or otherwise, wholly denies the possibility of individual agency in the very people you're ostensibly trying to defend.

You can start white and homeless; pretty soon you will be a person of color.