> You can't build housing cheap enough for chronic drug users to afford.

You certainly easily can: effectively free (subsidized by tax payers).

The house-the-homeless programs run during the Bush and Obama administrations dramatically reduced chronic homelessness in most of the US, pushing it to a record low per capita.

San Francisco is one of the wealthiest places on earth. They intentionally choose to allow the human rights violation of mass, particularly chaotic homelessness to continue in the city. Morally they own it, period. There are obvious, highly effective solutions that have been used elsewhere.

>You certainly easily can: effectively free (subsidized by tax payers).

That's not building cheap housing that drug users can afford. It's just getting someone else to pay.

Considering the majority of the homeless in SF are mentally handicapped, it turns out you can: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/03/05/san-francisco-h...

Deinstitutionalization has contributed to SF's homeless problem, as many mentally handicapped people self medicate with illegal substances.

You can prevent people from becoming drug users by not jacking rents up so high that they're forced on to the streets.

I wasn't aware that drug addiction was mandatory for the not- conventionally-housed.