Fix demand to fix homelessness

Common proposals to fix San Francisco’s homelessness problem usually address supply. Housing first says we need to get everyone into stable housing before any other issues are addressed — this is contingent on a sufficient supply of supportive housing. Yimbys say we need to build more housing generally, then everyone will be able to afford housing in their city of choice. Leftists want the government to build public housing and house the homeless permanently and for free. All of these approaches miss or avoid asking an important question: Why should the homeless be housed in one of the world’s most expensive real estate markets?

For a homeless person to expect free or heavily subsidized housing in a city like San Francisco is like a hungry person going to 3-starred Atelier Crenn and expecting the government to foot the bill. One might argue that the government should provide basic survival necessities like food and shelter to those who can’t provide for themselves. But there is no reasonable argument that the government should, using funds obtained by taxing others, provide luxury meals or accommodations to anyone when those same dollars could feed or house an order of magnitude more people when spent more efficiently. One unit of permanent supportive housing costs an estimated $1 million to build in San Francisco. Housing is available throughout this country for one tenth that price or less.

Leftists are correct that using police to chase the homeless from one corner of the city to another is neither a permanent nor cost-effective solution. But providing taxpayer-funded housing and services for the rest of each homeless individual’s life wherever they wish to live is even less practical.

The ultimate goal should be a federal solution to homelessness. If locations for shelters and permanent supportive housing are decided at the federal level, we can take advantage of economies of scale, availability of cheap land and housing throughout the country, and ensure that only those who truly can’t provide for themselves depend on the government for housing placement. If street camping bans are enforced and zero housing for the homeless is available in San Francisco or New York City, only cities like Witchita, KS — would homelessness still be an attractive option? So long as cities continue to pay the bill for homeless people, there will be no pressure to enact a federal solution.

Here’s a roadmap San Francisco can follow to make itself undesirable to homeless people (reduce demand), make it less desirable to stay and easier to leave: