[lotu]

Yes but critically none of this money is actually given to the homeless person. So we aren't giving them anything for free we are just dealing with the consequences of them not having a proper support system. Spending money to do that is okay, because it doesn't really directly benefit the homeless person.

[AnotherGoodName]

Also the essence of ‘San Francisco has a lot of homeless’ isn’t really a logical argument against those policies since homeless will often migrate to where the functional support services are. San Francisco may well be doing amazing things with getting people back on their feet at a relatively lower cost than prison.

You need to go many levels deeper on statistics to understand if it’s working or not.

[giraffe_lady]

> since homeless will often migrate to where the functional support services are.

I've heard this a lot but I don't have any reason to believe it's true. Never seen a reputable study that asserts it. I've known a lot of homeless people but none that relocated for this reason. Most who moved were looking for work or trying to get closer to family. Most didn't move at all and were just where they had always been, or in the city they were living in when they became homeless.

[throwaway-11-1]

when I did homeless outreach in San Diego I was told around 40% of the people we were helping were from out of state that moved there but couldn't stay afloat for various reasons, leaving them homeless in the area

[nradov]

Drug tourists migrate to San Francisco because they can get free money to buy drugs.

[bpodgursky]

Sorry this is very wrong. SF has so many homeless people because they come to SF to get free things.

Most of that is not direct cash transfers but they absolutely receive more in services than in other places, that is why they attract homeless from all over the country.