San Francisco gets several millions of dollars to spend from which they spend a measly amount on the homeless(and that’s over 350 million/annum)..where is the rest? Even the money spent on homeless solutions is mostly going to contracted non profits(look at their board..probably has ex-city employees as board members) or more public sector employees.
With 350 million, I would have created a new sustainable village to house 1000 people with jobs inside. Instead, SF still huffs and puffs and spends tax dollars on piffle and squat.
You think housing is somehow immune to supply and demand? If that's the case, you can't claim rents are rising due to increase demand from young professionals. Which then raises the question: "What does affect rental prices?"
I keep hearing proponents of strict exclusionary zoning laws arguing that they don't like the risk of having the value of their investment decrease because of this. SF will be a great example of how change happens weather you like it or not and allowing dense housing is what makes the change good or bad. You either sacrifice some of the view or sacrifice not having homeless camps.