One factor not mentioned yet is that the homeless are allowed to reside on the streets of SF.
The streets are someone’s property (usually—municipal property), and the property owner can implement and enforce rules that ban the homeless from residing there. For example, under a threat of incarceration (including mental hospitals, addiction treatment centers etc).
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to implement such rules (I haven’t thought deeply about it). But it could greatly contribute to the difference in visible homelessness between, say, SF and Beijing.
That’s certainly a good solution to the homelessness problem : force them to leave the streets in the city center. Then they can go on being miserable at some place were we don’t see them, which totally solves the problem.
(This comment may contain some form of irony, thread carefully)
I’m not advocating for it, but I can see how relocation could reduce the misery. There is a lot of crime in SF, the access to recreational drugs is too easy, and the rents are too high.
In particular, for the homeless drug addicts, an Amish-like community in a deeply rural area could be much more healthy. A complete isolation from all recreational drugs alone could be a major factor, if done properly (including medical supervision). If I remember correctly, a large part (if not the majority) of the homeless in SF are drug addicts.
Drug addicts also commit disproportionately many crimes, so removing them from city centers could noticeably reduce crime (which is causing a lot of misery for the rest of the city population).
One factor not mentioned yet is that the homeless are allowed to reside on the streets of SF.
The streets are someone’s property (usually—municipal property), and the property owner can implement and enforce rules that ban the homeless from residing there. For example, under a threat of incarceration (including mental hospitals, addiction treatment centers etc).
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to implement such rules (I haven’t thought deeply about it). But it could greatly contribute to the difference in visible homelessness between, say, SF and Beijing.
That’s certainly a good solution to the homelessness problem : force them to leave the streets in the city center. Then they can go on being miserable at some place were we don’t see them, which totally solves the problem.
(This comment may contain some form of irony, thread carefully)
I’m not advocating for it, but I can see how relocation could reduce the misery. There is a lot of crime in SF, the access to recreational drugs is too easy, and the rents are too high.
In particular, for the homeless drug addicts, an Amish-like community in a deeply rural area could be much more healthy. A complete isolation from all recreational drugs alone could be a major factor, if done properly (including medical supervision). If I remember correctly, a large part (if not the majority) of the homeless in SF are drug addicts.
Drug addicts also commit disproportionately many crimes, so removing them from city centers could noticeably reduce crime (which is causing a lot of misery for the rest of the city population).