Im actually for doing something about income inequality but most of the homeless problem has nothing to do with it in SF. The main issue is the city lets a lot of psychotic people that need help do whatever they want with no consequences.
And the current situation is pushing the income inequality to unparalleled levels.
IMO this is just a reaction to an imbalance, because clearly the market is unable to balance itself.
A government middle man is not going to reduce income inequality. First, we need to decide whether or not inequality is necessarily a bad thing if everyone's situation is improving. Otherwise, it just comes off as covetousness. Second, we need to evaluate if mental health/drug rehabilitation facilities would solve a lot of the homelessness problem. Third, we need to reduce government restriction on building to put some downward pressure on housing costs or encourage people to establish employment or businesses in areas that are more economical.
Income inequality now is much less than during Astor and Rockefeller times. Yet the homelessness and the relative poverty is worse.
I don't have the stats but I'd assume that the cost of living has also gone up in the largest cities along with the density.
Why does it need to balance itself?
Initiatives like this, which increase upward economic mobility, should have precisely the opposite effect. Shanty towns are populated by people who have been left behind by the economic system.
Is income the reason most homeless people are homeless, or is mental health issues why.
And is a lack of funds the reason California can't address their mental health, or is an inability/lack of interest the reason?
'Should', but will they? Good intentions do not necessarily good policy make.
Brazil actually has a public housing working program that works.
Can you imagine california favelas? Doesn't seem that farfetched.