If the average home in San Francisco sells for $1.2 million, and the average home in Willard, New Mexico sells for $120,000 is it really so dreadful to help ten times as many homeless people?
People with non-tech jobs already can't afford to live in SF. Unless you're expecting the formerly unhoused to suddenly become a Senior Machine Learning Engineer at FAANG, they aren't going to have a great time trying to make ends meet in SF.
It's not a city where you want to rediscover yourself in, unless you inherited property from a previous generation or you're one of the lucky few whose career is benefiting from the latest tech gold rush. You will not escape the homelessness cycle unless SF taxpayers guarantee you free housing until you get hired by Netflix.
I do entirely get this, but I also think it's a little disingenuous for some to act like their consideration is any more about what's best for that homeless population, versus what's best for those residents.
I didn't say it was without benefit, whatsoever. But it's not a net positive. Now you have a bunch of people who the local populace is going to be bitter at, because they get subsidized shelter. There's no jobs to be had, so you have people living there who are now going to be taking more from local social services (and they're not contributing particularly to local taxes). There's not much of anything to do there (and not in the whiny sense, there's near zero amenities, it's a town of 250 people). They're stuck there, because any notable services and infrastructure require a car (there's no public transit infrastructure).
In my mind? All you've done is create a powder keg.
> Now you have a bunch of people who the local populace is going to be bitter at, because they get subsidized shelter
Versus the love they're getting from the populace now?
Perfect is the enemy of the good. San Francisco is three quarters of the way towards spending its median income on its homeless [1][2][3]. That is how you generate a toxic backlash against a subgroup.
Has anyone asked the homeless in San Francisco if they'd want a free apartment in Willard? When rates were lower, we could have probably paid for their mortgage for less than it costs to temporarily house them. That is the opportunity cost.
> Versus the love they're getting from the populace now?
Right. So they're getting no love in either place. So why is this better?
> San Francisco is three quarters of the way towards spending its median income on its homeless
The median income in Willard is $26,000, so how far do we think that's going to go?
But like you say, there's no love in either place, so moving these people from San Francisco to Willard (I know, hypothetical) has very little to do with what's best for them, but instead "what's best for the residents of SF". Nothing much changes except SF residents don't see them and don't pay for them now.
... in a town of 250 people, where nearly a third of the population lives below the poverty line.
The ONLY people that benefits is the residents of SF or wherever, that successfully managed to "make it someone else's problem".