> But it probably goes: SF spends a lot of money on services for the homeless, so lots of homeless people keep going there to get those services. Other places d

> But it probably goes: SF spends a lot of money on services for the homeless, so lots of homeless people keep going there to get those services. Other places don't spend any money on services for the homeless, so the homeless people leave. That's really not a realistic view of the situation though. Pretty much everywhere in the US, _all_ major cities at the very least, have "services for the homeless". I think the problem lies a lot in the "progressive" idea that people claiming "homeless" somehow classifies for a privileged status. They setup a "homeless class" of people that don't have to work, and get paid to do so. The worse they act, the bigger the "problem" is according to their "caretakers" and the only outcome they can expect is to get an even _bigger_ payout. In most major cities, shelters require a certain code of conduct. Those that don't abide by it get ousted, suffer the cold of winter, and buck up and man up and deal with it. In SF, they just camp out in the nicest of areas, people cry "hey there's some victims!" and they get an even bigger reward for their degeneracy. People that think they're helping stop some sort of cycle are literally just working at creating the feedback loop.