Alabama the state has fewer homeless people than SF the city. Why? A trailer rents for $300/mo. The average SS check is $1500. Most homeless qualify for SS or disability. This is a political problem, not a money problem. Legalize trailers and you could end homelessness.

Imagine being homeless in SF today. It costs $700k to build one unit of affordable housing in SF. The difference between SF and Alabama is policy. Land is more expensive here bc it’s illegal to build anything but a single family home in more than 70% of the city.

Homelessness isn’t actually complicated. When rents rise, homelessness increases. Rents rise when wealthy incumbents block developers from building new homes. Rents fall when builders get to build. Solving homelessness requires building way more homes

When people say it’s complicated what they mean is that it’s politically difficult to get wealthy homeowners to not vote out representatives who are willing to clear the path for development. It’s not complicated. It’s evil. Local control of land use is weaponized selfishness.

SF doesn’t have trailers because they’re illegal in 70% of the city, homeowners have the legal means to block them in the rest of the city, and trade unions will go to war with any Supervisors who approve them because they aren’t the ones putting them together.

Anyway. Fuck our selfish-ass NIMBY voters, our spineless Supervisors who cater to them, and everyone who doesn’t have the brains or balls to call this what it is.