This doesn't track. San Francisco has arguably the most generous social safety nets in the entire country. The city is spending upwards of $100k per homeless person. (https://www.hoover.org/research/only-san-francisco-61000-ten....) The more San Fran spends on social services, the worse their crime becomes. I don't think this has anything to do with social safety nets or disenfranchisement.
Just because you spend a lot of money, it doesn't mean you are doing something well. I could spend $10 million to have my front door changed, does that automatically mean I now have good security?
That's a fair argument. Current policies are clearly not working. What do think San Francisco could learn from much safer cities like Carmel, Meridian, Provo, Sugar Land, McAllen, and Pearland?
I think it's even worse than that: that whole system is benefitting from the situation, so has no incentive to actually do anything meaningful about the problem, just to pretend that they are. It's a variation on the Iron Law of Institutions.
