There's always enough X in San Francisco to give every homeless person X/n of it.
What's lacking in San Francisco is the political will to do anything meaningful about homelessness (or crime, or the housing crisis, or infrastructure, or the schools or anything other than vague virtue signaling)
To their credit, they've found new ways of using resources in the most inefficient way possible.
"San Francisco is paying $16.1 million to shelter homeless people in 262 tents placed in empty lots around the city where they also get services and food — a steep price tag that amounts to more than $61,000 per tent per year."
That was my first thought as well but then remembered that often the reason for homelessness is mental health issues. Many homeless people are just incapable of taking care of themselves.
e.g. not paying rent/bills when they physically have the money to do so, gambling addict so getting into massive amounts of debt, getting evicted due to antisocial behaviour/vandalism of property.
Maybe that's the case, but instead why not rent apartments on behalf of the homeless people, put them there, and get them evaluated and treated by a mental health professional?
Living in an actual building rather than a tent in a parking lot ("protected" or otherwise) seems like a great first step and healing some of those mental health issues.
When the treatment starts working to a degree that the formerly-homeless person can be trusted with the cash, give it to them, along with the rent bills.
While I imagine there are a lot of detractors here, I like universal basic income. We could try to slice it and have a system to pick and choose who gets it, but as we've seen, the waste that goes into the bureaucracy when it's not just "give everyone a check".
What's lacking in San Francisco is the political will to do anything meaningful about homelessness (or crime, or the housing crisis, or infrastructure, or the schools or anything other than vague virtue signaling)