Most of the people in dire straits in SF came here from elsewhere. I don't think subsidizing is the city's responsibility, and doing so only encourages more to come.
I know this sounds harsh, but I can't see how incentivizing low-income people to move to an unaffordable city is feasible or prudent.
Even if you believe that, it's politically non-viable to propose demolishing SROs and kicking the existing semi-homeless out, many of whom are older, minority, genuinely mentally ill, drug addicts, etc., particularly in SF. So the libertarian or capitalist greater harm is keeping the TL as an undeveloped warzone, way beyond the cost of resettlement and assistance.
City demographics are changing. I think it will become viable soon. Most San Franciscans are tired of filth and squalor, and moving the dependent population onto land cheaper by a factor of 100 is compelling.
A lot of the issue is that people rich/smart enough to move to SF now (vs. those who pre-existed) value education. They're not going to send their kids to SF public schools, so they move to Hillsborough or Palo Alto for the schools. That leaves a population of 20-30s childless people, who are more likely to be liberal, and old hippies, the same.
I know this sounds harsh, but I can't see how incentivizing low-income people to move to an unaffordable city is feasible or prudent.