I think it was Deming who said "your system is set up perfectly to produce the results you are getting." SF has:
- a mild climate (attractive if you don't have shelter)
- our society has no place for mentally ill. They may not ever be able to live life by themselves.
- a $250 million of subsidies for being homeless, apparently
- a culture of spending money on the symptoms rather than solving the problem. For instance, a number of comments here suggest paying for them to live in a house/apartment somewhere. Now you're stuck paying their rent forever, because the underlying problem of they aren't making enough money to live is still there. Plus, if I'm homeless, now SF looks like a good place to move, because they'll pay for my apartment!
- a culture of permissiveness. Why do homeless people get to act with different standards? If a "homed" person defecated on their neighbor's sidewalk they would call the police, but it's okay for the homeless to do it? If a "homed" person throws liquids at you, it's probably grounds for charging them with assault. But it's okay for homeless people?
- persistent lack of housing, which means that some people who might not be homeless can't afford housing. Combined with the above, there isn't much incentive to move to a place they could afford.
I think the attitude of entitlement by some of the homeless (see rsj_hn's comment, for instance) suggests that SF's structure is enabling homelessness, rather than caring for the homeless.
- a mild climate (attractive if you don't have shelter)
- our society has no place for mentally ill. They may not ever be able to live life by themselves.
- a $250 million of subsidies for being homeless, apparently
- a culture of spending money on the symptoms rather than solving the problem. For instance, a number of comments here suggest paying for them to live in a house/apartment somewhere. Now you're stuck paying their rent forever, because the underlying problem of they aren't making enough money to live is still there. Plus, if I'm homeless, now SF looks like a good place to move, because they'll pay for my apartment!
- a culture of permissiveness. Why do homeless people get to act with different standards? If a "homed" person defecated on their neighbor's sidewalk they would call the police, but it's okay for the homeless to do it? If a "homed" person throws liquids at you, it's probably grounds for charging them with assault. But it's okay for homeless people?
- persistent lack of housing, which means that some people who might not be homeless can't afford housing. Combined with the above, there isn't much incentive to move to a place they could afford.
I think the attitude of entitlement by some of the homeless (see rsj_hn's comment, for instance) suggests that SF's structure is enabling homelessness, rather than caring for the homeless.