What Justin Keller got right - and wrong - about San Francisco's Homeless Problem

The root of every economic crisis is a crisis of leadership. The root of leadership stems from viewing (and responding to) the world with a mix of optimism, creativity, compassion, resourcefulness, hard work, willingness to ask the tough question of "why" structural problems (e.g. poverty and unemployment) exist, and then following the answer to the "why" question with a demand for action to be taken at all levels of society to fix the structural problem identified. Financial wealth, power and influence may come from one, some, or all of the following: Hard work, perseverance, personal choice, opportunity, good decision making, or even just plain luck. Likewise, misfortune, lack of power, or financial/resource poverty may come from any of the following: Lack of hard work, bad decisions, lack of opportunity, personal choice, or just plain bad luck. When we have scores of people in our country, as well as in other countries around the world living homeless or in other states of poverty - despite the world having abundant technology (computer tech, transportation tech, housing/construction tech, agricultural tech / biotech, health/medicine tech, communication networks, etc.) and abundant natural and man-made resources, we ALL need to spend more time asking the question: WHY? After that, we need start holding ourselves and others - especially those people with power (and control of resources, capital, and legal/political systems) - accountable to working on fixing the root causes of domestic and international poverty and other structural issues that stem from various crises of leadership. With respect to the homelessness situation in SF Bay Area (and other parts of the U.S.) my hypotheses of some of the root causes include: International bank control of US Federal Reserve (not actually owned or controlled by US government) policy; Overly-restrictive zoning regulations and building permit processes; Over-reliance on income tax and sales tax as opposed to property tax for government financing (which encourages speculative land-hoarding by investors and artificially limits the supply of available housing; accounting rules that encourage layoffs and discourage employee training and development by requiring companies to expense employee salary and training costs (excluding salaries spent on capital asset development) in the period incurred as opposed to allowing companies to capitalize employee salary and training expenses and amortize those expenses over the true economic life of the benefits received from employee work; uneven labor and environmental standards throughout the globe that encourage shifting jobs to the country with the least employee rights and the lowest environmental standards; international currency / exchange rate manipulation; excessive state occupational licensing rules; and others. Now that I've outlined a few of the root policy-driven causes of poverty, let's all put our heads together and start working on solutions.

San Francisco is a great city just like New Orleans, full of personality and charm that was established by it's diverse population, not just a bunch of wealthy people.

Hay Bob. Not necessary True. Just because your making ends meet in SF doesn't mean your going to be better off in Modesto. I know a lot of people who have moved to what they thought was a cheaper area of the country to live in, only to move back because the economy wasn't any better off, and they were the third man out which didn't help in finding jobs or starting up a business. The homeless people that I have seen and talked with around my shop, sums it up perfectly. Defiantly some have mental problems, others are drug addicted, and some just lost everything due to the collapse of the housing market. Most of these people want to work but threes not enough good paying jobs for them to sustain a suitable living. We as a society can spend millions on presidential campaigns but when it comes down to the homeless, all we do is complain about and ignore. More to come.

The affluent have - or invent - all sorts of rights, which they think they have just because they are affluent. If the indignant well-to-do (which certainly outnumber the homeless by a factor of 20, if not more) would sacrifice their weekly (or monthly) pocket money, they might buy a trailer park. Therein all 4358 homeless persons could be sheltered and would no longer offend the sensitive eyes and hearts of the poor affluent citizens. Since however this entails a certain sacrifice, all sorts of arguments will be put forward to prove that it is either impossible or unworkable, or both.

I think that there needs to be a recognition of the relative costs in different markets, and how that affects people's ability to survive. I believe that everyone who is willing and able to work deserves a decent home, food, clothing, and medical care. I believe that those who are not able to work deserve public assistance. But I do NOT believe that people have a right to expect those things in one of the most expensive markets in the United States. The broad problem of homelessness needs to be addressed at the state and even national level. A person who cannot earn enough for his needs in San Francisco might be completely self-sufficient in Modesto.