To be fair, "Of those, over half (55%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 or more years" is much harder to game, though just as easy to lie about.
I'm more worried about this thought in the article:
> While cities report inconsistently, San Francisco currently spends around $430 per city resident per year on services and programs for the homeless, compared to $260 in New York and $110 in Los Angeles. Yet the problem in our city is worse, and despite increases in spending, has continued to worsen.
It's not a surprise that the city with more spending on services for the homeless has more homeless. That's exactly what you'd expect under pretty much any model.
Do you believe that subsidizing the homeless means you'll get more homeless? Then higher spending will directly cause more homelessness.
Do you believe that places with bigger problems will try harder to do something about them? Then higher spending will reflect more homelessness.
I'm more worried about this thought in the article:
> While cities report inconsistently, San Francisco currently spends around $430 per city resident per year on services and programs for the homeless, compared to $260 in New York and $110 in Los Angeles. Yet the problem in our city is worse, and despite increases in spending, has continued to worsen.
It's not a surprise that the city with more spending on services for the homeless has more homeless. That's exactly what you'd expect under pretty much any model.
Do you believe that subsidizing the homeless means you'll get more homeless? Then higher spending will directly cause more homelessness.
Do you believe that places with bigger problems will try harder to do something about them? Then higher spending will reflect more homelessness.