This is a hilariously naive and silly take because SF did exactly this and continues to do so. Spoiler alert, they have massively exacerbated their homeless problems and very few are being reintegrated back into society.
San Francisco also refuses to enforce basic rule of law and has hamstringed its police department, so this doesn't surprise me. Crime rates are through the roof, and a housing crisis has been ongoing for years because of restrictive zoning. I don't think it's fair to assume that basic income for homeless folks is the cause of SF's devolution into a hellhole. There are a lot of other confounding factors.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. SF absolutely does already give out monthly grants. It hasn’t seemed to move the needle in reducing homelessness, but maybe it make things less dire for those who get it? I guess the question is what’s the goal of the money…
"Exacerbated" via causation or correlation? I'm genuinely asking. I'm ignorant here and need sources. Given the growing US homelessness crisis, how much better off would SF be having done nothing?
