How can cities like San Francisco solve their homeless problem?

Affordable housing and mental health facilities would probably take care of the lion’s share.

A wealth tax has been proposed on corporations in Seattle(?) or SF(?) to fund low cost or no cost housing for the homeless. i believe Amazon shot the idea down in Seattle. I have seen videos about other small cities that have built housing for the homeless.

This question is particularly apt, because San Francisco is not only one of the most progressive places in the country, but relatively speaking, the town is rolling in money. One would suppose that if there is any progress to be made in the search for “the cure”, San Francisco would be the Los Alamos in the field of researching solutions based on buying our way out. I think the great hangup with the town’s efforts to deal with the indigent, lies in the fact that the city has for decades been a magnet for the down & out. It’s the unhappy price you pay for a reputation of “doing the right thing”.

Hawaii has the highest homeless rate per capita in the nation. Source

Only about ¼ of homeless individuals have a serious mental illness. Source1 Source2

The majority of homeless people are that way because of economic factors. “Today’s homelessness crisis is at its core an economic problem rather than one of mental health or substance abuse. Broad economic forces, such as globalization and urbanization, have had substantial impact on both housing markets and basic income levels, contributing in large part to the current homelessness crisis.” :Source

It is an incorrect assumption that a homeless person is mentally ill. It is, however, correct that more people who are homeless are mentally ill when compared to rates in the general population. We do not need more psychiatric hospital beds in which to place homeless mentally ill people. We need affordable housing and community-based treatment resources. In the 1980s, state psychiatric institutions were closed nationwide without a commensurate rise in funding for community-based resources leaving a treatment deficit.

Homelessness is only partly a mental health issue. It is fundamentally an economic one.

And this influx of the indigent is not necessarly the result of decisions by the more prudent of the homeless-our refugees aren’t necessarily more analytical than others. There is the unfortunate fact that for decades now, other municipalities have recognized the utility in solving their own problems for the price of a bus ticket. Twenty years ago, a guy that I would give empty soda cans and bottles asked me: “Did you ever see a homeless person or a shopping cart filled with someone’s belongings in Daly City, or anyone even pushing a shopping cart in Daly City (the town bordering San Francisco)? I couldn’t answer that question then, but have looked diligently in the 20 years of 2–3 per week excursions since. He went on to explain that the price of pushing your belongings in a cart on the streets of Daly City or even panhandling in a parking lot was to be picked up by a police cruiser (abandoning your belongings) driven to SF city limits and released with the advice that “I don’t want to see you in my area again.” That was some 20 years ago, and I can yell you that I have yet to see a homeless person, panhandler, wino or sidewalk shopping cart ANYWHERE in Daly City.

Then came gentrification.

@stanleybmanly When I lived in Denver, Colorado, all the smaller cities used to send their homeless on buses to Denver because “that’s where the services are”. Denver then collected money from the other cities. There were no homeless in Boulder, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and so on.

Well, to begin with, -
Stop.
Having.
Children.
Also, provide free medical care for all. There are many, many people out there on the streets who are there because they got sick and couldn’t pay for the care.

While many of the homeless are families/children, the majority of assistance available is earmarked to serve them. That leaves individuals in more need than others.

Some cities have begun small house clusters to shelter such individuals.
I think the tiny homes are a good solution, and I am anxious to learn the outcomes.

There are mental health issues in some cases, but mainly, I believe, it is economic. There was an expose’ done on the homeless in Los Angeles. They interviewed one young woman who has a job as a registered nurse. But she doesn’t make enough to afford housing so she lives in her car and showers at the Y. When someone that makes a good living (RN’s make good money) and can’t afford a home, real estate prices are ridiculous. I found this article

https://www.cbsnews.com/media/the-11-most-expensive-us-states-to-buy-a-home/

that shows the top 11 most expensive states for real estate. Interestingly, 10 of them are solidly blue states (if you count Washington DC as a state). I found this interesting. Liberals are the first to talk about giving to others and taking care of the poor and how Repubs are all about the money, yet theirs are the most costly places to live.
Now I know there will be scoffing, but when you are looking for solutions to a problem, you need to understand and acknowledge all variables and look at all possibilities. If you don’t, you are likely to miss what the real problem is and not come up with a solution that fixes it.

@seawulf575 So what exactly should the take be from the fact that libereals sit atop the country’s most pricey real estate? The first is that for whatever reason, people want to live there. Opportunities! H J’s comment above about Hawaii is fully understandable to me. If you’ve gotta be homeless, why not choose paradise? And surprise surprise, paradise turns out to be a tolerant blue land. Which brings me back to an issue key to this discussion, and what my first post here is all about. It would be tough to list a demographic outside prison less in control of its destiny and more vulnerable to the exigencies of chance than the homeless. It is therefore to be expected that they will concentrate where they are tolerated, and TOLERANCE is NOT exactly high on the list of conservative values. To be fair, there are the equations expensive real estate=rich blue residents=bountiful tax revenues=we can afford our homeless. Perhaps the redlands can’t afford tolerance, and to extrapolate on that theme, perhaps THAT is what the country’s ever more strident partisan divisions are all about. As the vice squeezes ever tighter, we feel less wiggle room for compromise, and actually get pissed at the suggestion of it. So the enclaving of the country proceeds apace as the redlands are increasingly defined as those with their necks against the block. But as usual, I’m drifting.

Yeah, being homeless in HI would be better than some places, but still pretty sucky. And one of the cities with the highest homeless rate is Seattle. Not so much of a paradise. Actually, the city with the most homeless is NYC. Again…not a paradise where you could camp out on the beach. I find it odd that you are always down on the rich and how it is all their fault, yet can’t see that might be part of the problem with the homelessness when it comes to liberal states or cities.
Your equation speaks against the purported liberal values as well. expensive real estate=rich blue residents=bountiful tax revenues=we can afford our homeless.

So being a rich liberal is okay and justifies people being homeless? That’s sort of what it sounds like. It doesn’t say it eliminates homelessness, just that you can afford the homeless. See, this is what I am talking about. There might be something to that viewpoint that contributes to homelessness.

You and I have been fighting for what seems like years, and you remain the biggest knucklehead I’ve ever dealt with. I am SO tired of you telling me what I said or think, and consistently getting it wrong. If anything, what I’m saying is that there might be a surplus of people in blueland aware of the fact that their wealth has a lot to do with the accelerating poverty at the other end of the scale. I’m saying that the tolerance in blue places may simply be a matter of conscience, even if the guilt yields little beyond what amounts to feeding the pigeons.