Two points I want to mention: first, this article is pretty informative (it's been on HN before I'm pretty sure) about rents, construction, etc. in SF: https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme...

> Building enough housing to roll back prices to the "good old days" is probably not realistic, because the necessary construction rates were never achieved even when planning and zoning were considerably less restrictive than they are now. Building enough to compensate for the growing economy is a somewhat more realistic goal and would keep things from getting worse.

> In the long run, San Francisco's CPI-adjusted average income is growing by 1.72% per year, and the number of employed people is growing by 0.326% per year, which together (if you believe the first model) will raise CPI-adjusted housing costs by 3.8% per year. Therefore, if price stability is the goal, the city and its citizens should try to increase the housing supply by an average of 1.5% per year (which is about 3.75 times the general rate since 1975, and with the current inventory would mean 5700 units per year). If visual stability is the goal instead, prices will probably continue to rise uncontrollably.

- - - - -

Second, SF city politics, always a bit freaky in the best of times, has gotten really weird since Mayor Lee passed away. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/san-francisco-mayor-br...

- - - - -

Put these two items together and the short answer to the question in the title is, "No."

As mentioned in the article, we already spend one quarter of a billion dollars on homelessness in SF. That's not a typo: 0.25 * 10 to the ninth power.

> San Francisco’s programmes, which cost $250m per year, are praised by many campaigners against homelessness. Still, the city could spend its money more efficiently.

There's plenty of money, even after:

> About two-thirds of its homelessness budget goes on rent subsidies and “permanent supportive housing”.

So ~$170m for housing (never mind that folks aren't homeless if they live in a house) still leaves ~$80m to deal with a few thousand people.

> Early intervention is often much cheaper.

Yes. Something like 60% of EMS response downtown is related to issues with a small handful of people. The ambulance drivers know them by name.

- - - - -

Last but not least, a random thought in re:

> Jeff Kositsky, the city’s director of homelessness services, cites the example of a driver for Lyft, a ride-hailing service, who nearly fell into homelessness after his car was damaged. The city kept him off the streets by simply paying off the cost of his car.

What? As an S.F. resident this doesn't seem right. I appreciate that this guy isn't homeless, that's great, I'm not disturbed by that. The thing that I find unsettling is why didn't his car insurance pay for it? Or Lyft for that matter?

But then I have to remind myself that this is the city that passed a law to just give money to certain businesses if they were considered "Legacy" enough. I'm left-leaning but that blew me away:

https://www.sfheritage.org/legacy/legacy-business-registry-p...

> The registry is open to businesses and nonprofits that are 30 years or older, have been nominated by a member of the Board of Supervisors or Mayor, and in a hearing before the Small Business Commission, prove that they have made a significant impact on the history or culture of their neighborhood. Only 300 business can be nominated annually and all applicants must agree to maintain the historic name and craft of their businesses.

https://sfosb.org/legacy-business

> Through the Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund, Legacy Businesses on the registry may receive Business Assistance Grants of $500 per full-time employee per year, while landlords who extend the leases of such businesses for at least 10 years may receive Rent Stabilization Grants of $4.50 per square foot of space leased per year. The business grants will be capped at $50,000 annually; the landlord grants will be capped at $22,500 a year. For fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19, a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment of 3.1% will be added to the grants. Additional CPI adjustments will be made every two years.

Yes, Virgina, we collect taxpayer money and then give some of it to businesses we like just because we like them.