They claim to be capitalists, but what would they say about getting rid of the restrictions on SROs, aka "flop houses" that you used to see all the time back in the 40s and 50s? Oh NOES! They'd say. That was when we were still living in a somewhat free country. Bring back the cheap flops, that would probably house most of the working homeless.
I live in Frisco. We still have plenty of SROs. In fact, one of the things that the pro-gentrification folks get absolutely up in arms about is that because years ago we entered into a deal with the federal government to get federal money to help support the SROs, the SROs can apparently NEVER be converted into any other form of building unless the federal government says so. Build all the chrome and glass towers you want, that SRO will still be sitting there at the end of the block.
But if you think those SROs house even a tenth of the otherwise-would-be-homeless population in SF, you're kidding yourself. Even the shelters, sponsored by every kind of charitable organization you can think of, don't have a fraction of enough beds.
And yeah, the rest of the Bay Area could maybe do a better job of building SROs and homeless shelters outside of the City, but how would that work, really? A lot of the people who find themselves on the street have real problems. They have mental health issues, they have problems with drug addiction, they have medical problems like diabetes. Is San Leandro going to build free health clinics to handle those issues? Are they going to build drug treatment centers, are they going to hire mental health professionals? On the last one, the answer is plainly no -- we know from experience that what happens to people who suffer schizophrenic episodes in suburban, upper-middle-class areas is that they get thrown in jail and abused, sometimes killed, because there's no infrastructure to treat them.
That's what I don't get about this influx of fuckin dicks who have moved to my City. The only way the economics of dealing with poor people who have medical and mental health issues even start to work is when you have the population density of a major city. A guy living in a tent in San Francisco cannot just up and decide, "Welp, I can take a hint, they don't want me here" and go live in a tent in Castro Valley. If he was lucky, six months from now he'd be locked up on a long-term sentence, if he was unlucky he would be dead. But all these rich assholes, on the other hand ... they can AFFORD to go buy a house in San Ramon! They can afford a car to drive in from Danville or Fremont or Orinda, and when they open the Venetian blinds in the morning they won't ever need to see a poor person! So why can't they go live where the rich people live and let the poor people live in the only model of society that can support them? Why would they spend $2 million on a house that would cost $150,000 in Michigan and then complain that there's garbage everywhere, graffiti on the walls, homeless in the streets, and everything looks like shit? What ... am I meant to be sorry for them because they took a sucker's bet and got suckered?
And, might I add, to you rich assholes, please move along let us people who have both a little money and enough compassion to understand that in this life you're going to have to live ALONGSIDE poor people, let us live in the City, pay our taxes and vote for how they're spent without hearing narcissistic douchebags talking about washing the poor off the streets. You're disgusting and you make this City look even worse than the people you complain about.