Having walked Market Street at night and during the day, I believe its seediest part is Civic Center. Everything before that seems fine due to increased police presence, a.k.a. it's the tourist zone.

I would agree that two slums sandwich this narrow band.

In 2017 SF had about 7500 Homeless people, if your numbers are correct (cannot find the source), then it means city spends per homeless person annually somewhere between $40K to $53K, which seems to be insane amount of money.

It is and its worse than you think. Here's a 2016 article https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor...

> none trickles down to the actual homeless.

Trickle down doesn't work for people who do not contribute to the society in any way. Why do many homeless don't? I don't know, but that's what any government effort should focus on. Spending money and hoping it will trickle down without addressing the root cause is stupid.

Going to need a citation here, because all of the data says things are getting better. I live in SF, I have worked in mid-market and I edited the Street Sheet and worked directly with homeless people for several years. I'm not super interested in your one anecdote about the one time a homeless person scared you.

Please don't turn uncivil, even if someone is wrong about homelessness. It helps nothing to damage the site you're contributing to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Spreading misinformation is cool though huh

There is currently a well-funded political campaign, backed by VC money, to change conservatorship laws in California to snatch homeless people off the street and involuntarily institutionalize them. You are doing serious harm by allowing people to spread misinformation here without challenging them, and punishing people doing the thankless work of correcting them.

Of course it isn't cool, but it's impossible to prevent people from being wrong on the internet. The question is how to correct misinformation when it appears. If you blame people and snark at them, that reinforces them in the error. Worse, you discredit the truth in the eyes of the neutral audience who might be persuadable, but react adversely to the hostility. Your comment upthread was much better, especially because it provided an alternate source.