> 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.
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.