I'd imagine the main reason is that SF is walkable - not only for the homeless themselves, but also for the targets of their begging activity. The weather is liveable, I suppose, but LA's is better - if that's all it was, they'd be in LA, but LA's much more car-based.

Anyway, whatever the reason, I think it is actually a "situation". Many cities have homeless problems, but SF's is amazingly in your face. Most SF people I know would simply not walk through Tenderloin at any time, even in broad daylight. It's in the middle of the freaking city! That is not normal.

People who won't walk through the TL have over-active imaginations. The TL has an over-hyped reputation.

Or rather a reputation that lags reality by 20 years or so. It isn't cheap enough to exist in the tenderloin for it to be as bad as it once was.

Tell me about it.

I've only been in the TL for three years or so, but I've spent the majority of that time wondering how regular working-class families with kids can afford to live in the area. I can't imagine how street-level pushers or prostitutes make rent. Maybe they rent places out in Hunters Point or Outer Sunset?

Hmm. So, these things are frequently run as subsidized housing projects. Good to know. Thanks for the link.

Apparently, a lot of them are there because of lack of treatment for their mental illnesses:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-everyman-psychiatris...

I recently lived in the Tenderloin for six months, and my impression was the the majority of the chronically homeless there are crazy.

Right, but in say Union Square most of the homeless aren't crazy. The Tenderloin is full of people who just walk around talking to themselves or a wall and will follow you around screaming at you.

Union square has a lot more alcoholics and drug users, and 'talented' homeless people like street performers and pick-pockets. They may have some minor issues but they're clearly there by choice.