SF literally has a homeless industrial complex. There's a network of non-profits that siphons billions of tax payer dollars to "fix homelessness".

If they really cared about preventing homelessness, they would pass rent control legislation. Every other western nation has figured this out, if you provide basic (and relatively cheap) safety nets around housing, you don't have thousands new homeless people a year.

Instead they choose to waste taxpayer money to buy London Breed's donors another house in Sonoma

Broad rent control protections were passed in San Francisco in 1979, and statewide in 2019, and has lead to more misery over housing by slumlords than if there was no rent control. Landlords have zero incentive to improve their properties, so the number of people I know that are living in cheap, but substandard apartments (eg heating is non-functional) is too many. And even if you get rent control so you can continue on affording rent, if the burrito place charges $8 which then increases to $12 with inflation, the budget you have that's counting on $4 burrito means you still have to move away.

Again, non-US western nations have figured this out by providing tenant rights (rent control included in this).

Slumlords can and should be legislated out of existence.

> if the burrito place charges $8 which then increases to $12 with inflation

Where do you think this inflation comes from? If not from uncontrolled rental price increases?

San Francisco has tenant rights (rent control included in this). What rights do you think San Francisco tenants are missing?

Inflation in the cost of food has many sources, among them, the cost of the food ingredients, and increase in minimum wage paid to employees to make said food are the two other large ones to factor into the cost of food.

> Slumlords can and should be legislated out of existence.

This is the prevailing liberal thought these days... the government should be in charge of housing completely.