This is also a question I’m interested in. To what extent is it:

- better services

- 35% more cops per-capita

- lower tolerance of camps

- something else like the street price of drugs

Honolulu has a bad homeless problem, but they also have a strong, visible police force. Honolulu also provides free one-way plane tickets back to the mainland if there is family who says they'll help them get re-adjusted. So it's probably niether one of those things.

What is SF doing different is not bussing their problem to Texas or Florida as Texas and Florida do.

This culture is a joke. An intentionally unaccountable but highly compensated and connected federal political apparatus is ignored and blame placed on local power for its lack of accountability fixing country-wide issues.

Such exceptional neighbors I have across the country that they put up with this.

Honolulu has a bad homeless problem, but they also provide free one-way plane tickets back to the mainland if there is family who says they'll help them get re-adjusted, so "not bussing (away) their problem" is not the issue.

Sorry this is simply impossible to take seriously as a comparison. Hawaii is literally surrounded by the world's most enormous, unswimmable moat. Homeless are thus predominantly going to come from within the islands existing population, with barely a trickle coming from outside. Compare this to California which you can hitchhike to, ride a boxcar to, drive a $300 beater to, take a greyhound to, or even walk to given enough time.

Avalon is also part of Los Angeles County, which adds to your moat analogy.

Honolulu's homeless problem is also nowhere near as bad as SF's, by the numbers. And for whatever reason, Honolulu's homeless seem way less addicted to drugs, and with fewer mental health issues.

SF will also provide bus tickets to homeless people if they have family elsewhere who can help care for them, but to me it seems the program is under-utilized.

A lot of the problem here is that it is just one area (mostly), but that area is very close to the conference, hotel, and tourism heart. The financial district and other parts of downtown are fine. I also routinely (yesterday for example) hear from people who actually visit sf and realized that while it has problems it’s not the hell scape they were told about

Boston has winters that will kill you. Even if you don't die or get frostbite, it's gonna be a bad time. Shelters are often not places to be.

By comparison in SF you can sleep outside all year round with minimum headaches, and tent / camper / van life is an option. Nationally, over time, the homeless will start moving towards places like that.

SF is also more of a cultural fit than Boston.

Sf decriminalized drugs and petty crime. Then was shocked by an explosion in drugs and petty crime, which then started edging into less than petty crime.

The city’s famously progressive policies were, perhaps, not thought all the way through.