[huffmsa]

Versus the outlying suburbia? Because it's harder to get around in suburbia. Cities are easier to walk / ride your bike around and you're just a face in the crowd. People notice you if you're camped out in a suburban shopping mall.

[huffmsa]

Or versus another city, it's the weather. Never hot enough to turn you into jerky, never cold enough to turn you into a popsicle.

Since piles of people dead from exposure isn't a risk, the city doesn't have the same motivation to build shelters like a New York does, so they kick it to the side.

The citizenry gets concerned with poop on the street, but once it's bodies, they really expect the government to do something.

[huffmsa]

So, now that the government can safely do nothing, why won't the private sector fill in?

3 part answer:

1) my understanding of the political lean of the city is that the government is the great social savior.

2) most private groups who take care of the homeless and otherwise destitute havehistorically had a religious affiliation.

3) private groups have to deal with the same real estate prices as everyone else, and because of 1 and 2 and the general skepticism of religion by the citizenry, they won't be given any tax breaks or land price cuts, meaning they simply cannot afford to setup service.

It really is a self feeding system of misery-but-not-enough-to-kill-you all the way around.

[pjc50]

There is literally no money in it, so obviously the private sector isn't going to do anything. You might get a bit of "third sector" charity, but it's always inadequate wherever you go.

[thaumasiotes]

> The citizenry gets concerned with poop on the street

This does not appear to be true for San Francisco.

[huffmsa]

Concerned, but not enough to really do anything about it.