"In 10 years, he pledged on June 30, 2004, the worst of San Francisco’s homeless problem would be gone. [...] A decade and roughly $1.5 billion later, the city has succeeded in moving 19,500 homeless people off its streets, roughly equivalent to relocating the entire Castro district. But despite that major effort, the homeless population hasn’t budged, showing that as one homeless person is helped, another takes his place." https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/A-decade-of-homeles...
The homeless population has remained steady about 5,000 - 6,000 people. It suggests some sort of equilibrium and that the predominate dynamics at play are far more complex than issues of housing costs and "gentrification".
If you have a mental illness or drug addiction problem, it's actually not too difficult to get off the streets in relatively short order if you choose. If you lack either of those handicaps you're likely to leave altogether. But in the aggregate there's a certain tolerance people have (especially for the mentally ill and drug addicted) for living in homeless conditions, and people (especially the mentally ill, drug addicted, and people who live on the street) don't like rules.
Also note that the number of living-on-street homeless today is the same as over a decade ago. (I qualify homeless because if you live in certain types of housing you're still classified as homeless under various regulatory guidelines used to allocate funding.) Removing compulsory treatment and other consequences to get off the street has, at best, been a wash in terms of homeless numbers. (More likely contributed to overall increase.) However, it very clearly has resulted in homeless flouting normative behaviors even more. Most mentally ill and drug addicts were and are capable of avoiding using the streets as a latrine because despite the same number of street homeless the environmental conditions are far worse today than at any other time, even though the numbers are unchanged. Which means they were and are capable of responding to consequences. If you're all carrot and no stick, don't be surprised at the results. It's something that's undeniable at this point. We can't only blame unjust laws or difficult economic situations, not in the aggregate.
The homeless population has remained steady about 5,000 - 6,000 people. It suggests some sort of equilibrium and that the predominate dynamics at play are far more complex than issues of housing costs and "gentrification".
If you have a mental illness or drug addiction problem, it's actually not too difficult to get off the streets in relatively short order if you choose. If you lack either of those handicaps you're likely to leave altogether. But in the aggregate there's a certain tolerance people have (especially for the mentally ill and drug addicted) for living in homeless conditions, and people (especially the mentally ill, drug addicted, and people who live on the street) don't like rules.
Also note that the number of living-on-street homeless today is the same as over a decade ago. (I qualify homeless because if you live in certain types of housing you're still classified as homeless under various regulatory guidelines used to allocate funding.) Removing compulsory treatment and other consequences to get off the street has, at best, been a wash in terms of homeless numbers. (More likely contributed to overall increase.) However, it very clearly has resulted in homeless flouting normative behaviors even more. Most mentally ill and drug addicts were and are capable of avoiding using the streets as a latrine because despite the same number of street homeless the environmental conditions are far worse today than at any other time, even though the numbers are unchanged. Which means they were and are capable of responding to consequences. If you're all carrot and no stick, don't be surprised at the results. It's something that's undeniable at this point. We can't only blame unjust laws or difficult economic situations, not in the aggregate.