[k_kelly]

Cities that don't care for their homeless tend not to have a homeless problem.

SF actually has relatively great care for homeless people compared to the majority of the US. Therefore a lot more homeless end up there.

The homeless problem is striking because it's almost entirely artificial. If SF didn't care for it's homeless, and didn't rent control areas to allow affordable housing it would probably be like midtown manhattan. That's boring to a lot of residents and unfortunate for the homeless, but where's the tax money coming from to allow the status quo to continue?

No one seems to be debating the value of social programs, but what's the advantage of the tenderloin? It's been a decaying mess for generations when it could be a profitable, vibrant part of the city which would be beneficial for wealthy and poor alike.

[moocowduckquack]

Cities that don't care for their homeless tend not to have a homeless problem.

The same is not true of countries.

[xargs]

If folks want to really understand the history, demographics, socioeconomic issues, and legality/zoning/civics of the Tenderloin, they should read this article: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/arise-tender...

^ It's easily the most accurate, holistic, and honest piece on the Tenderloin I've ever come across.

[CreRecombinase]

What part of midtown Manhattan is beneficial for the poor? Also, what makes you think NYC doesn't have a homeless problem? Unless of course your definition of "homeless problem" is: "homeless people are bothering me", and not "homeless people don't have a warm place to sleep".