Cities don’t have border gates. As the article states, the number of homeless people is increasing at a higher rate than other population growth factor. SF is taking on the burden of a full state and some of the country.
SF is willingly taking on that burden. All of SF's policies have only made homelessness worse, not better.
Generally speaking spending more money on something will get you more of it. Why would homelessness be any different?
I don’t debate that. My answer was to the original question.
Is your belief falsifiable?
What would you have to see before you might start to think San Francisco's policies might be part of the problem?
I mean the person just argued that it has to be solved at the national level. I think willingness of homeless people to stay in small to medium sized towns with bad winters depends on accessibility of student and tourist populations, but those balance of factors means they sleep in the snow to get their support, but the small town doesn't want to build a shelter and provide extra incentive to stay.
My guess is you agree that is has to be solved at the national level? The federal government has spent over $20 trillion to fight the war on poverty since 1965. You really thinking throwing more money at the problem will solve homelessness?
Just money? No. Money doesn't ever solve problems. The effective use of said money does. You can't find effective uses for money without trying to see what works. Most cities have homeless if some sort. My small city has a homeless population and it took my church guaranteeing to donating time just to keep people alive in the winter. The mayor here routinely destroys places where the homeless live and takes all their resources in the middle of winter. Does our effort help? It keeps a lot of them stay alive over the winter. We also have a community meal on Saturdays to give people community and companionship. No government here helping, but it does require a lot of time and money.