The fault here lies with the SF electorate, who collectively wants their housing investment to be protected and homelessness to be fixed. Actually, I would arg

The fault here lies with the SF electorate, who collectively wants their housing investment to be protected and homelessness to be fixed. Actually, I would argue that this isn't even a conflict, because SF homeowners probably do not want a durable solution to the homelessness crisis. That would require bulldozing the suburbs. They instead want SF to sweep the homeless under some proverbial rug so that their presence does not tarnish the value of their homes. House them, but house them somewhere else. This isn't even an instance of the Shirky principle, it's just people using words in confusing ways.