Scott examines San Francisco's apparent improvement in homelessness, finding the main effect was decreased tent encampments due to court rulings allowing easier clearing, not actual reduction in homeless population, revealing a basic tradeoff between visibility and homeless welfare. Longer summary

Scott investigates why San Francisco's homelessness crisis appears to have improved, finding that the main effect was a dramatic decrease in tent encampments (not overall homelessness) due to court rulings making it easier to clear them. He analyzes four potential explanations: encampment clearing after legal changes starting in 2023, a possible small decrease in actual homelessness due to falling rents and enforcement driving people to hide, Mayor Lurie's policies (which he finds mostly ineffective), and claims about cities shipping homeless people elsewhere (which he finds largely unsupported). Scott concludes this is a 'maximally boring story' about a basic tradeoff where cities made homelessness less visible at the cost of making homeless people's lives harder, challenging both his previous belief that nothing could improve the problem without mass incarceration and the opposing view that 'getting tough' would be compassionate. Shorter summary