Homelessness is actually something which should be addressed at the Federal (for Veterans) and State (for people who should receive medical help) levels, not the city.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Of course there should be state and federal help, but it's nowhere near self-evident that San Francisco should simply sit on its hands.
As a suburban dweller in Oregon, I benefit enormously from Portland taking one for the team - Hillsboro and Beaverton's Finest can harass the homeless with a purpose, knowing that they will eventually get sick and tired of the mistreatment and move back to Portland. Thanks, Charlie![1]
This is the entire origin of NIMBYism - "It'd be great if we could put in a methadone clinic / halfway house / homeless shelter / whatever to deal with our social problems, but what it actually means is that every other nearby region will just dump their own burdens on us."
How do you fix it? Fuck if I know.
To answer homelessness, we need to understand the responsibilities of our civic institutions, the limits of their theoretical jurisdictions and the underlying causes of homelessness. Ultimately, your view on who is responsible stems from your understanding of the purpose of different forms of government. My views start from a strict constitutionalist point and then evolve as various judicial outcomes have moved the goalposts.
Upvoted for being the most HN intro ever. Could only be more at home on Reddit.
I'm sensitive to your viewpoint, but it's one thing to argue that state and federal institutions ought to take the lead on solving homelessness and quite another to suggest that the city ought to contribute nothing to the solution.