[ethomson]

I'm not sure that I agree with you. I don't equate allowing homeless encampments with "taking care" of them. Many of these people have mental illness and / or drug addiction that is being ignored by the city.

I feel like San Francisco (and some of the other nearby municipalities like Berkeley) have this lassez faire mentality when it comes to their homeless population where they think that interfering would be a bad thing. That this acceptance is a healthy thing. That some guy in a tent in Golden Gate Park who yells things at passers-by and chases dogs is somehow a charming slice of life in the city and contributes to its uniqueness and not that this poor guy might benefit from antipsychotics.

But again, that's just a feeling I get that I can't really back up with anything but anecdotal evidence.

Chicago is certainly no better in terms of taking care of its homeless, as you point out: the city and state have been deprioritizing spending for years. Homeless shelters, community health organizations, addiction centers have been losing state funding and having to get federal and private grants to get by (when they can get by; certainly the number of beds available are shrinking.)

But Chicago isn't proud of the status quo and I'm surprised that San Francisco, well, seems to be.