San Francisco Has A Homeless Problem: Again

       So, over the last 2-5 years, the media has focused on the visible evidence of the City's obvious homeless problems.   Whether a photo of an indigent living on the street, or an article about the plight of certain individuals among the group, the public has been kept informed on the problem and the City's inability to change the numbers, excepting those numbers reflecting an extraordinary amount of tax money spent to deal with the homeless.
      The problem is not new:  when former Mayor Willie Brown was in office at City Hall, his progressive left hounded him into action.  He was wise enough to do something to assuage the feelings of the do-gooders who argued that "something "-"anything" must be done NOW.  The results were the usual high-visibilty temporary fixes:  short term housing options that extended to those who could get themselves to a shelter.  Most of the shelters were in the South of Market area(before the present day ascendancy of the area).  One in particular stood out: a converted warehouse on land that would be used later as a parking area for the new Giants baseball stadium.  This warehouse-a large open bay structure used just for the warehousing of goods before distribution to customers in the City-housed at the high point 700 individuals, maintained by City -provided staff(some private employees under contract also).  The homeless were given a cot to sleep on, bathroom facilities immediately adjacent, showers also included, and meals brought in to support those living there.  Soon it became evident that this collection point brought its own problems:  health needs were not addressed among a population that needed more than the average cohort;  mental health issues that caused interpersonal conflicts without local resolution; sex and identity issues(who identifies as what gender); personal property security; pet support and security; and the inevitable emergency response needs.  The fact that the sites south of Market were temporary, City staffers could plan for long term solutions.   Those solutions were never able to stem the tide.
     It has been over 20 years since that turn of the millennium period of 2000, and the problem has only gotten worse.  As the Dot-com era retreated and was replaced by the digital application era, the City became a magnet for entrepeneurs,  social media startups, and multi-billion dollar IPO's that launched a new City atmosphere of unparalleled financial success, concentrated in the tech industry as it spilled north from Silicon Valley, the seed bed of all things tech in the world.  An adjunct tothe rise of tech was a housing affordability problem.
      And now: the coronavirus.  It's a new ballgame for everybody, including the homeless of San Francisco.   Mayor London Breed has earmarked $105 millions of tax dollars to provide housing for the homeless in local hotels that have been left empty by the dearth of travelers forced into lockdown wherever they live.  The numbers of tourists has been reduced essentially to zero.  Hence, new space available for the "homeless" needing shelter.  The money will provide up to 7,000 hotel rooms for 3 months.   This will have the effect of providing job support for the service sector employees of those same hotels.   Absent will be the 14% occupancy tax paid by the tourist for the room.  The question is: will it work?  TBD.
       Pundits and pols have been scratching their collective heads for decades in an attempt to find solutions for this intractable problem.   Given the inability of local jurisdictions to restrict the flows of individuals into the cities themselves, the problem then becomes a Federal problem; which requires a Federal solution.  This requires federal funds to succeed in any measure.  Sociologists, medical experts, politicians, and scientists have yet to agree on what might have a chance of succeeding.  Meanwhile, cities throw more and more money at the problems without making a difference in outcomes.
       Can this program make a difference even with the coronavirus onslaught?  No way.  Given the extraordinary needs of this subgroup of the population and a track record of its own inability to succeed, the only benefit will be to those hotel owners and their employees who can work through the lockdown period we live with currently.   At the end of 3 months, look for the inevitable extension until hotel owners say enough, "We can't take it anymore".   Meaning the infection rate among staff is too high, and too costly.  Then what?  Tent cities in Golden Gate Park as they were after the Earthquake and Fire of '06?
     Stay tuned.

Night: Golden Gate Bridge