Thanks for this. It seems very specific to San Francisco in parts. I live in a more rural California county, but one where homelessness is also a big problem and is also driven by housing shortages and housing prices. Based on my observations, I would add another factor to your list: The criminalization of low-quality housing.
Low-quality housing includes homes that are in poor condition, or that lack certain amenities or improvements, or that have many residents per room. Local governments may mandate that all homes conform to certain appearance standards, have certain quality minimums, are rented with certain amenities included, have a minimum number of rooms per inhabitant, or are brought up to certain carbon-neutral standards. Such laws increase the price of the lowest rung on the ladder out of homelessness.
It’s hard to argue against these laws, because people see the alternative as poor people having to live in crappy housing. (And tolerating e.g. slums/slumlords.) Unfortunately, the alternative to poor people living in crappy housing is poor people living in cardboard boxes under bridges, and that’s somehow harder to impress on people.
If you regulate low-quality housing out of existence, then the pathway of [homeless ⇒ low-quality housing ⇒ satisfactory housing] becomes [homeless ⇒ still homeless ⇒ chronically homeless].
The governments in my area typically try to patch this up by trying to create a stock of satisfactory housing that is government-subsidized or set aside for people in supportive housing programs. This “works” to some extent (you can point to real homeless people who are getting real homes they can sorta afford). But it is a very expensive, Rube Goldbergish way to go about it, and is insufficient to keep up with demand.
The idea that you can reliably make something better by giving the U.S. federal executive branch more authority over it is an idea that has been reductus ad absurdum so thoroughly by now that I’m surprised it is still taken so seriously here.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that we need a pause in AI capabilities development, etc. but the theory that the path toward doing this effectively and well runs primarily through the White House doesn’t seem to me to pass the laugh test.