SF's homeless problem is a direct result of so many negative federal policies and so many positive SF policies that it's so funny that people come out of this with a negative opinion on SF.
SF spends so much fucking money on the homeless, including 112 million on supportive housing for the formerly homeless and 27 million spent on eviction prevention.
The problem is that the issue of homelessness is a FEDERAL issue and that no one city, even SF has the resources to combat it.
As some have said SF and many other west coast cities are extremely attractive to the homeless because they have relatively lenient laws regarding them, ample social services (relative to any other city) and moderate temperatures.
SF is also a mecca for sending your queer/trans child that your religious beliefs can't bear to have around you.
There are many obvious solutions to mitigate homelessness. Provided government housing, decent physical and mental healthcare, job training.
San Francisco does all of those things. However, the fact is supply and demand is totally out of whack because SF is a sink for homelessness.
This needs to be addressed federally and until then all west coast cities will continue to be filled with homeless and have their social services over run.
> As some have said SF and many other west coast cities are extremely attractive to the homeless because they have relatively lenient laws regarding them, ample social services (relative to any other city) and moderate temperatures.
[citation needed]
I'm skeptical of the weather argument. I would expect the homeless to move to Los Angeles or San Diego first.
Of course, that's assuming the homeless have the mental capacity to even make the conscious decision to move there. I don't think most addicts or mentally disabled people have the wherewithal to make a move from, say, Chicago to SF. (I.e. how do you make a planned move with (a) no money and (b) no Google to figure out the commercial train line routes you can hop a ride on for free? Hop a train in Chicago and maybe end up in Lansing, Michigan or Toronto instead!)
There are lots of homeless in San Diego and LA, however, they don't have the same level of density that SF is nor the same level of social services.
>I don't think most addicts or mentally disabled people have the wherewithal to make a move from, say, Chicago to SF.
There is a distinction between people with mental health problems and mental disability. Things like addiction and mental health exist on a pretty vast spectrum and have massive variations day to day.
As to how homeless people get around - well I see you haven't been on the greyhound much but that's a major way to travel for homeless both with their own money or with tickets paid for by various cities.
For many reasonsons. Some include the fact that homelessness isn't an issue that arises at a city level it's something that arises at a national level and was in part caused by federal decisions such as the privatization and defunding of mental health institutions and the failure of the federal government to appropriately care for veterans.
SF spends so much fucking money on the homeless, including 112 million on supportive housing for the formerly homeless and 27 million spent on eviction prevention.
The problem is that the issue of homelessness is a FEDERAL issue and that no one city, even SF has the resources to combat it.
As some have said SF and many other west coast cities are extremely attractive to the homeless because they have relatively lenient laws regarding them, ample social services (relative to any other city) and moderate temperatures.
SF is also a mecca for sending your queer/trans child that your religious beliefs can't bear to have around you.
There are many obvious solutions to mitigate homelessness. Provided government housing, decent physical and mental healthcare, job training.
San Francisco does all of those things. However, the fact is supply and demand is totally out of whack because SF is a sink for homelessness.
This needs to be addressed federally and until then all west coast cities will continue to be filled with homeless and have their social services over run.