> Just make city policies such that there's no advantage to being homeless in SF
I don't see any advantage to being homeless. Literally every human being without mental issues would prefer having a roof over their head. This is a market failure.
I don't see any advantage to being homeless. Literally every human being without mental issues would prefer having a roof over their head. This is a market failure.
You missed the "in SF" part of the sentence. In a sense you're correct, it is in part a market failure in SF for subsidizing homelessness.
>Literally every human being without mental issues would prefer having a roof over their head
I have a few times, on purpose. Not being responsible for a house can be liberating, depending on your life circumstances -- if you're not addicted, you're healthy and able bodied, and not mentally ill. It can be like an adventure where you see where you like to go, can get all the money you need for a week in only a day of day labor (which is trivial to get if you're able bodied and have an ID). Homelessness with serious personal problems is awful, but otherwise it can be an enjoyable lifestyle.
I would probably choose periodic homelessness still today were it not I have a child, whom CPS would probably take away if I enjoyed some of the liberties of my youth.
So I bought a shitty car and slept in the forest. The car finally broke down. I wound up homeless. I found out I really loved the forest and spending my time outdoors. I loved to spend months at a time in tents, coming into town to do day labor. Really it's a life I dream of nearly daily now that I have responsibilities to my family that keep me chained to a desk 5 days a week, and to a child during the weekends.
Only once you've been homeless you realize the problems of the homeless are typically the reason why they became homeless - drugs/addiction, mental illness, criminal record, lack of skills for employment. I had none of those problems really, so to me it was just a new adventure, except I could go practically anywhere I wanted and just enjoy travelling. I knew how to live outdoors and can easily adapt a tarp for inclement weather so for me it was just fun, for real! But I know it isn't that way for someone who doesn't want that life. I could always just pick up a day of day labor, and after a couple weeks of that afford to rent another room -- many people have personal problems that keep them from doing that.
Do you have proof that they would, in fact, be successful? Have you tried running an RCT? Maybe they would't be able to find jobs, or have childcare available from family nearby.
But I doubt it would get past an ethics committee, and if it did there would be a huge scandal. We're pretty deeply committed that the huddled masses of the world must be housed within SF. Even as we're equally deeply committed that they not exist at any particular site within SF, and won't contemplate anywhere near the unit counts (from a budget perspective or a permitting perspective) that would be required.
That's the problem right there.
Are you aware that mentally ill and drug-addicted people are often able to hold down jobs and afford rent? But that only works when rent is reasonable.
If you do day labor all week you just made $500 and you only need $100 to survive the week. Pretty easy to sock money away that way... if you decide to rent a room a couple weeks of that gets you your first week in a weekly rental and from there you can clean up and get a regular factory job. I had a well oiled process that I ran that cycle quite a few times. AFter 1-3 months at a factory I would generally get a fork-lift job or something that paid even more and from there you're basically as rich as the average American.
Bonus: If you have HN skills your average wage from the fork-lift job will give you enough to buy a nice laptop, hi-speed internet and then a high-paying programming job -- although it's obviously not generally applicable (although I've done it).