[einpoklum]

> enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability

You mean by not having public housing?

> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

It's obviously not a choice. It's also not the result of mental illness nor of drug addiction, at least for the most part, as people suffering from mental illness or addicted to some drug also don't want to be homeless and stuck on the streets. And while they are somewhat more likely to lose their house due to mis-managing their life - it is much much more likely to happen when they have no social support: Medical care-givers (no such thing by default in the US), neighborhood/community associations (not much of that in most cities), families etc.

> where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?

Your right is not catered to by social institutions, and municipal ones in particular, who are acting as though homelessness should be addressed by suppressing/harassing the homeless rather than ensuring people have homes.

[fosk]

They do refuse housing when it is being offered. In addition to this San Francisco does not cooperate with ICE to deport illegal aliens which make the housing problem worse.

Do you agree that if they do refuse housing we need to do something about it? Do you also agree that we should start taking action in making more housing available by at least deporting illegal aliens?

It is obvious by now - after 40 years - that the current strategy does not work, don't you agree with this statement?

[einpoklum]

> They do refuse housing when it is being offered.

This sounds rather incredible... can you back this claim up?

> they do refuse housing we need to do something about it?

Perhaps, but to be honest I'm quite baffled by this. I'm even surprised that San Francisco is offering 0-rent apartments to the homeless, when generally from what I know the rental market there is rather out of control.

> by at least deporting illegal aliens?

the problem you decried is people who are homeless and harass others on the streets. So, why use someone's legal immigration status as the criterion for action? I'd imagine most homeless are actually US citizens, and that illegal immigrants tend to find someplace to work and some decent sleeping arrangement.

[asdff]

If you build enough shelter space to house the homeless population, by law your choices are to sleep in the shelter or go to jail if you refuse. Until enough shelter space is built, you can continue to sleep on the sidewalk. See the Boise decision which dictates this policy all over the Western United States.