San Francisco is imploding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

Perhaps the answer is institutions. Yes. That's right ... institutions. But due to the horrid history of past institutions, no one wants to even consider this anymore.

But imagine if there were a place where the homeless/substance addicted could live, eat and GET TREATMENT and health/mental health care, job training, and other support all under one roof. Where they would have dignity and yet still be required to be accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

If one of my kids becomes an addict, yeah I want it to be uncomfortable to use. Other states don’t hand out cash and food stamps totaling over $900 a month. I would rather he be in jail not using than in the streets with a really high chance of OD’ing on fentanyl. Or offered mandatory treatment vs. a jail sentence. That’s how it used to be in CA a few years ago when they had drug courts. But voters decided against that so now there is no threat of jail if you don’t go into treatment and no jail to stay least get you clean.

It is a miserable existence on the streets. Why are we letting so many people live like this and OD? 110,000 people died of an overdose on 2022; 100,000 people died in 2021. That’s insane! Ask family members if they wish their lives one was in jail or confined treatment facility or dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

If one of my kids becomes an addict, yeah I want it to be uncomfortable to use. Other states don’t hand out cash and food stamps totaling over $900 a month. I would rather he be in jail not using than in the streets with a really high chance of OD’ing on fentanyl. Or offered mandatory treatment vs. a jail sentence. That’s how it used to be in CA a few years ago when they had drug courts. But voters decided against that so now there is no threat of jail if you don’t go into treatment and no jail to stay least get you clean.

It is a miserable existence on the streets. Why are we letting so many people live like this and OD? 110,000 people died of an overdose on 2022; 100,000 people died in 2021. That’s insane! Ask family members if they wish their lives one was in jail or confined treatment facility or dead.

there are plenty of people in the world who were addicted to something at some point... and just quit

do you think it would be better for them if society had bent over backward to enable their continuing addiction?

[Anonymous]

^^^ PP here I wasn't (obviously) disagreeing with the post I quoted - I was agreeing with it in response to the post IT responded to

[Anonymous]

There is a shocking lack of empathy towards the homeless and people with addiction on this thread. It's, quite frankly, revolting. You're a bunch of ignorant, selfish, cruel fuXXs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SF is ripe for investing in now

It’ll fall somewhat from here but it’s not gonna become Detroit

is sf a dump? Yes

Would I personally live in sf? No

If you aren’t too over levered and can stomach some volatility, people getting into sf now are gonna make a killing in 15-20 years

I think you seriously underestimate SF’s risk for complete meltdown due to commercial RE implosion. If companies flee, which they’re already doing in SF, RE values tank. What’s SF going to tax then? They’ll try to dramatically hike taxes on residents, who will just leave. Is a death spiral due to their overly progressives politics. They’re following the same self destructive behavior as Baltimore. I bet if you asked people in the 1920s if Baltimore could ever become a rundown murderpit they would never be able to comprehend it because Baltimore was so wealthy back then. Yet here we are in the now with Baltimore more murders some years than NYC.

You underestimate Sf’s geography — it’s pretty rare on the planet

Money will always find its way to coastal areas with picturesque views and temperate weather

It’s not going to devolve into South Africa levels of dysfunction

CRE will get repurposed on a multi decade time horizon — if you have a family office between 5-10 billion, allocating 10-15% in Sf is smart and will pay off over a generation

You vastly overrate SF’s self worth.

Nah. You vastly underestimate it, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

Institution, hospital, or jail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a shocking lack of empathy towards the homeless and people with addiction on this thread. It's, quite frankly, revolting. You're a bunch of ignorant, selfish, cruel fuXXs.

No, what's cruel is leaving mentally ill, drug addicted people on the streets. Hospitalize those who want help. Put those who don't want help and commit crimes in jail. Put those with severe mental health problems in group homes or institutions.

[Anonymous]

Time to bring San Quentin back into action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

If one of my kids becomes an addict, yeah I want it to be uncomfortable to use. Other states don’t hand out cash and food stamps totaling over $900 a month. I would rather he be in jail not using than in the streets with a really high chance of OD’ing on fentanyl. Or offered mandatory treatment vs. a jail sentence. That’s how it used to be in CA a few years ago when they had drug courts. But voters decided against that so now there is no threat of jail if you don’t go into treatment and no jail to stay least get you clean.

It is a miserable existence on the streets. Why are we letting so many people live like this and OD? 110,000 people died of an overdose on 2022; 100,000 people died in 2021. That’s insane! Ask family members if they wish their lives one was in jail or confined treatment facility or dead.

there are plenty of people in the world who were addicted to something at some point... and just quit

do you think it would be better for them if society had bent over backward to enable their continuing addiction?

Most long time don’t just quit their substance of choice. They just die a relatively early death due to health complications spurred by their addiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a shocking lack of empathy towards the homeless and people with addiction on this thread. It's, quite frankly, revolting. You're a bunch of ignorant, selfish, cruel fuXXs.

No, what's cruel is leaving mentally ill, drug addicted people on the streets. Hospitalize those who want help. Put those who don't want help and commit crimes in jail. Put those with severe mental health problems in group homes or institutions.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a shocking lack of empathy towards the homeless and people with addiction on this thread. It's, quite frankly, revolting. You're a bunch of ignorant, selfish, cruel fuXXs.

No, what's cruel is leaving mentally ill, drug addicted people on the streets. Hospitalize those who want help. Put those who don't want help and commit crimes in jail. Put those with severe mental health problems in group homes or institutions.

+1

Really? Who's going to pay for it? We currently do not have enough slots in hospital mental health wards, substance use treatment facilities, or "groups homes and institutions" for all the mentally ill and/or substance using Americans that need it. The LAST people in this country that will ever agree to pay for such services are Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

Institution, hospital, or jail

There is not enough funding for institutions and hospitals, and the jails are already full of people with mental illness and substance use issues. Please explain how your suggestion will be paid for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

There are also many many instances that have been documented where mentally ill people and drug addicts were sent to San Francisco and Sacramento and other places. Here is an example where a Nevada mental institution was dumping patients on the streets of San Francisco.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/21/nevada-california-patient-dumping/2681593

That piece is 10 years old. Any more recent pieces?