> How does it cost more to rent a hotel room for a homeless person than it does for a home-ful person? Shouldn't the city be getting some kind of discount and

> How does it cost more to rent a hotel room for a homeless person than it does for a home-ful person? Shouldn't the city be getting some kind of discount and just pass out keys and rooms in bulk? No. Given the rates of mental illness and drug addiction in the homeless community, I would expect a higher than normal number of issues. It's also bad for brand; no one wants to be "the homeless hotel", so there's going to be an upcharge for that loss. And lastly, the homeless aren't likely to be responsible for their incidentals (I can't imagine the hotel would allow that), so damage is more likely. I don't think that's anything related to being homeless, just that people are less careful with things they won't have to pay to replace. I doubt police would do car chases if they had to do it in their own car (not a comment on police, just government workers generally). So no, I really don't think anyone will rent the city all of their rooms to house the homeless, and especially not at a discount. A big part of the problem is that people don't want to be near the homeless, so they tend to devalue anywhere there are a lot of them. This is why the Navigation Centers are so unpopular; no one wants their home/business to lose value because it's near a shelter. Everyone agrees we should build them, and everyone agrees we should build them somewhere not near them. So they just don't get built. And unfortunately, having good services for the homeless can end up attracting more homeless people. If you start offering a nice hotel room to all the homeless people, what homeless person in their right mind wouldn't head to SF?