[techsupporter]

> SF and NYC would be better off finding those cheaper cities that need workers and showing them how to run services for the homeless.

Politically, this is almost impossible to do. When programs have provided funding to help people move to areas where they have support from friends or family, or to match up with jobs they could do but can't get to, the outcry is near-universal: "You're shoving your problems off onto the rest of the country! We don't want your cast-offs!" For good measure, they'll throw in using "liberal" or "freeloader" or "welfare" as an expletive.

The reverse--providing transportation to cities like San Francisco or Portland or Seattle, where the local community has decided to provide more services--is seen as far less politically unpopular, though doesn't happen very often but when it does, is seen as a good thing by the sending communities. "Well, they have the money to deal with it; we don't." "They like being 'Freeattle' so let them." As if there is some political motivation to being good humans to other humans.

Of course it's not anywhere near as stark contrast as my words seem like they imply; there's a whole lot of nuance and general bickering about what should/could/can be done. But if trying to be an advocate for housing and helping people out of these kinds of situations has taught me anything, people can be extremely petty about outcomes that seem like someone "undeserving" is "getting something" for "free."