SF Homelessness Crisis

There is nothing wrong with seeking cost effective solutions to problems.It is worth noting that many homeless people in SF did not become homeless in SF.They became homeless elsewhere, then moved to SF because circumstances there favor homeless living.

Maybe spending $240m is the cause?Hear me out, I am not a heartless bastard.The social services provided, combined with milder weather, make SF a better place to be homeless than other areas. Surely homeless people, just like the rest of us, are attracted to cities that serve them better.If you built every homeless person a house I don't think there would be any less homeless on the streets of SF. Homeless in LA who desire a house would simply migrate to SF. A Greyhound bus ticket

San Francisco spends roughly 35k/year per homeless person. Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government etc. that contribute to the situation we have today. I guarantee you, though, that if a bunch of homeless people started camping out in Pac Heights, the issue would get "resolved" pretty quickly.

San Francisco spends over $50k/year per homeless person and has the worst homeless problem in the nation. More money is not going to help. We need state power and willingness to forcibly commit heroin/meth addicts and mentally deranged people to institutions.

There was a survey (San Fransisco Homeless Count and Survey, 2022) which says 71% of the homeless in San Fransisco were living in San Fransisco at the time they became homeless, 24% were in another California county, and only 4% were out of state. But generally it makes sense that if a single county adopted housing first at a large scale these numbers might change. Additionally, the primary cause of homelessness is the severe housing shortage and the high cost of housing. So homes for the homele

With the hundreds of millions SF spends on the homeless, it could be fair to say that a large number of homeless don’t want “care” or “re-housing.” The city spends more and more and it doesn’t make a dent in the numbers. An objective observer might suggest that the more you subsidize something, the more of it you get. Compared to most places, it’s easier to be homeless in San Francisco, which could create a disincentive for the homeless to care about getting off the street.

San Francisco spends $50k per homeless person. The problem doesn't seem like it's money

San Francisco has unprecedented rate of help and support for homeless people and people with mental health issues.It is naturally expected that the people in need would move to the city. Maybe "other large cities" do not provide such kind of support? And if they did, people in need would not flock to San Francisco?

SF already has one of the most expensive programs in the country for providing shelter and services to the homeless. Homelessness is a national problem: if one city provides better services than others to get the homeless off the streets, it becomes attractive to homeless from other cities, who then basically get to free-ride on the city doing the spending.44% of SF homeless have been in the city for less than 90 days[1]; the problem isn't that the city's welfare system is inadequat

Cities that don't care for their homeless tend not to have a homeless problem.SF actually has relatively great care for homeless people compared to the majority of the US. Therefore a lot more homeless end up there.The homeless problem is striking because it's almost entirely artificial. If SF didn't care for it's homeless, and didn't rent control areas to allow affordable housing it would probably be like midtown manhattan. That's boring to a lot of residents