[yardie]

I can say it's a lack of forward thinking policy. My city, for example, has a very small but visible homeless problem. The majority are housed in shelters and shared housing. The remainder are the mentally, pedophiles, and physically violent. There is also a quantity of pet owners, pets aren't allowed in shelters so they chose the streets, but will use the shelter's showers. Our chronically homeless count has gone down from 8,000 to just over 1,000.

SF strikes me as nice but not kind city. If you're destitute they'll give you a dollar. But building affordable housing is too far a step.

[thatfrenchguy]

> But building affordable housing is too far a step

Building any housing that's not a McMansion in SF is literally almost impossible. NIMBY politics run deep in California.

[yardie]

California has so many great things going for it the locals would rather it not change. So they’ll pretend it’s full. And aggravate people there to leave and convince outsiders it’s not worth going to.

That’s how I interpret the laws. They are dysfunctional for a reason. Because no rational government could run this way.

[bombcar]

I can understand affordable housing to help lower incomes - but couldn’t SF build housing for the actual unemployed homeless far away from the city, even unto another state?

[Seattle3503]

Is this serious? Why should other states import SFs homeless problem?