"Tax the rich" seems like a decent starting point.

I’d be particularly interested in solutions that do not involve taxation or any involuntary contributions. Can we change the law so that building housing for the homeless is cheaper, for example?

Do you have some ideas on how to make building housing cheaper? Make substandard housing for the homeless, no need for fire or seismic code compliance? Enslave the construction workers? Forced relocation to North Dakota to take advantage of lower land cost?

Building good housing is already very cheap, when you compare it to the actual market price.

The reason why price is so high is because the government makes it literally illegal to actually build stuff. AKA building height limit zoning laws.

Just go look at how much it costs to build a good apartment building in any place in the mid west. It's cheap. Cost has nothing to do with actual construction costs. Its zoning and government regulations that cause all this.

I almost thought you were serious.

Do you realize that some of these people literally sleep on the concrete sidewalk? It would be hard to build something below those standards.

But YES! Why not “substandard”? I see homeless people huddling under awnings. I think an enclosed space with some heating and a roof would be a wonderful place for someone who normally sleeps outside.

If you remove arbitrary limits like density(height) limits and requirement for parking spaces, and lower the minimum space requirements, then the same amount of construction costs can have much more small "housing units" that each would be much cheaper than now.

Another option that has been used elsewhere is 'dormitory-style' housing, where the residents have their own small rooms but shared communal dining/cooking/shower areas; it has it's own set of problems but it is much more affordable; for people who can't afford better living space it's much better than living on the street.

If you create benefits for the homeless, you get more homeless. Homeless people are surprisingly mobile. So thinking anything like this will fix a local homelessness problem is a fallacy; once every homeless person in the Bay Area is housed, you have just as many if not more homeless people showing up in SF with their hands out. You either have to solve the problem nationally or drive homeless people out.

That said, if you have to choose a part of the country as the designated homelessness magnet, at least pick someplace with cheap land and cost-efficient transport in and out. Eventually you’ll have a national hub for substance abuse treatment and unskilled labor, unless it gets so dreary that people would rather be homeless in SF than live in a home there.

Cleverly, I never asserted that this would “fix homelessness”, I only asked if anyone was interested in building housing for the homeless.

I see it more as an experiment in radical compassion (where it may only be “radical” because we lack more compassion). Perhaps it’s best to view it as setting an example.

Whatever you call it, I find it absurd that we are as wealthy as we are and yet we don’t build homes for the homeless. You may well be right. We could build homes for the homeless and find ourselves overrun with migrants looking for a cheap place to stay.

But so far, I see little direct work to help these people despite our extreme wealth. It’s disgraceful to me that we have all this wealth and are so unwilling to share it with those who truly need it. I want to find others who care enough to find a way to build a roof for those who would huddle under awnings.

You may be pleased to hear that I am a libertarian, and so I have no desire to force you to contribute. But I am also a socialist, and I believe we can build a better society if those of us born in to wealth help those who are less fortunate.

Surely you like that idea? Or should our society block out those who for one reason or another have no wealth for themselves?

Ok, so what are you going to do about it? Start donating to Habitat for Humanity or any of the other myriad of non-profits out there.

Not sure why you’re being so hostile; I’m just pointing out some complications to the idea.

Sorry, I guess I read too much in to your comment and took offense to it. I’ve grown up surrounded by people that would hate to spend $100 to help the homeless for fear that $5 will go to waste, all while they enjoy security and others sleep on the ground.

I’ve got a lot of frustration around this issue, but I apologize if I was harsh to you in my reply.

Distributed around the city. No more than one affordable-housing high-rise per neighborhood. Clustering them has been tried, and it usually ends with a concentrated low-income neighborhood with all the problems that follow.

Taking the idea further, wouldn't it be better to have a percentage of each building's apartments be affordable?

Well, step 1 would be for us to stop making it illegal for developers to do exactly what you are suggesting, ie we should get rid of building height limit zoning laws.

Sounds good. How can we convince people sympathetic to the plight of the homeless that burdensome regulations actually raise costs and hurt the disadvantaged?

Ugg, you are describing the problem of the century.

Unfortunately I don't have an answer to that. It is apparently quite easy for people to convince themselves that they are "protecting the character of the neighborhood" while also hurting other people, while not realizing it.

I think that the only solution is to get together a voting cohort of renters, that will fight and vote for their own benefit.

But this is hard work and there are no easy solutions.