http://sfist.com/2016/02/11/71_of_sf_homeless_once_had_homes...
That's a common myth. 7/10 homeless people in SF were previously people with homes in SF.
That's a common myth. 7/10 homeless people in SF were previously people with homes in SF.
That's not saying we shouldn't help them, but just that this is a national problem, not one that San Francisco can solve unilaterally.
I agree that the federal government needs to do a lot more, but cities can solve their own problems too. These people are our neighbors. We can do better for them.
The city of San Francisco is in a unique position of having resources and political will to try new policies. I'll cast my vote accordingly.
You're way to focused on the concept of elasticity. There's a lot more to figure out before that's the immediate problem.
Your error is that you're obsessed with trying to fix this within a market economy, by specifically housing them in areas of high economic activity where they can supposedly find "opportunity". That won't work and is counterproductive.
> Only housing near economic opportunity means anything.
> Why do you insist it be the city's services and not the federal govenment's services? Where in San Francisco do suggest we house the nation's 643,000 homeless if the problem isn't solved at a national level?
Is it really only 643000? San Francisco's a city of ~800000 and could probably handle a 75% increase with a bit of high density construction. Sounds like such an easy problem to solve financially speaking. Why hasn't it been done already?
I think the reason it hasn't been done is that it would change the character of the city in a way most people wouldn't consider positive.
I think it's natural for a subject of such a poll to respond how s/he thinks will produce a result favorable to her/him in the long run. People like a sense of belonging.