The nuanced answer is critically examining where the money goes and making value judgments based on how effective the programs are relative to their expenses. Then possibly funding alternative programs instead of the ones that aren't cost effective. "Cost effective" sounds awfully inhumane but it's a very real and valid concern because there's only so much money to go around.

Housing unskilled labor in one of the most expensive areas of the US for real estate is as far from "cost effective" as it gets. I think there's a real case to be made that if you want to spend $1B on these disadvantaged persons that offering them housing along with free trade school in Alabama or something could be better for everyone. It's not like after they get back on their feet it's going to do them any favors to be stuck breaking into one of the most brutal housing areas of the US on whatever entry-level salary they'll be on. Of course if they want to stay in SF living on the street, they ought not be forced to leave -- it's a free country.

Note: I've been homeless twice. Both times I wanted to get out of it my step A has literally been "find lowest cost of living place in the country with low unemployment and work in day-labor agencies until I have enough for rent." It's worked both times, and relatively straightforward. It would not have worked in SF.

> I think there's a real case to be made that if you want to spend $1B on these disadvantaged persons that offering them housing along with free trade school in Alabama or something could be better for everyone

You could get a lot of the (arguable) benefits with less transportation costs and a whole lot fewer political/legal problems by doing it in, say, Merced County.

This would require Alabama to offer those services or housing though, it's not so simple to just relocate people to other states.

SF does have a program that will help you travel back to Family in other states/cities, but I don't think they can just ship people to a lower cost location

I imagine there is some law that prevents SF from spending tax money in Alabama in that manner, but I don't see fundamentally why it wouldn't work. SF sets up satellite company in Alabama that administers the program, accepts the $1B minus whatever the bureaucrats normally shave off for their own corruption, and then administer the jobs training and housing along with industry partners except the money goes 2x or 3x as far.

Added bonus, those who are capable of getting back on their feet can actually afford to live there afterwards instead of endlessly cycling through welfare cliffs.

Yes, Scott Wiener made a law that basically made it illegal for SF to do business with almost every state in the US. Often using incorrect methods of determination for why.

> What is the alternative to spending the money needed to house and treat people?

Not spending the money needed to house and treat people.

I guess this is the answer

Correct, that is what the Homeless Industrial Complex is doing.

One has to consider both sides. If it takes the net of a 1 person around the clock for life to support another person, you're at about break even because it cost you one life to 'save' the other life. Any more than that and the alternative of "let the homeless person live life on their terms however they're able to survive" starts to look more attractive. You wouldn't sacrifice two lives to save one.

There are much fewer homeless people than productive ones. Even if it costs the production of a whole person to support a homeless one to have a chance in life, isn't it worth it?

So go devote the rest of your life and all your money to saving some homeless person, no one is stopping you. It's your life to live as you choose. I'm just asking that at some point of spending a certain amount of resources without successfully getting a person of their feet, it become an option for someone like you to volunteer to fix the problem rather than a tax forced at gunpoint.

Remember there is finite money and there are hard decisions about whether to spend some money on say a homeless adult person that has been given many chances vs a young child who may be even more influenceable with the same amount of money. In many case these taxes are coming from families who no longer have the choice to spend that money on their young child or own family members.

Given infinite resources it may be worth it, but at the cost of robbing say a young child of these resources or multiple life-times of labor it may not.

What? No.

Homeless people aren't helpless animals in need of coddling. They are human beings with intelligence, perfectly capable of exploiting incentives and your kindness.

They terrorize eachother, and those who interact with them.

It only takes attempting to help a homeless person 2-3 times in person to see and understand that.

Needle exchanges, supervised injection sites, and cash stipends to addicts are going to be looked back on as hideously poor policy, and their supporters have blood on their hands.

Middle class families keeping enough of their hard-earned salaries to build lives and take care of their children.