> One might argue that the homeless people wouldn't be there if the fabulous wealth weren't also there. That they can even be there should be a testament to the city's tolerance.

Hmm, I see it more as SF, or society in general, being irresponsible for the homeless rather than being tolerant of them being there. In fact, this brings up another point I was talking about with someone else. That when people say "the homeless problem in SF", they don't actually care about the homeless' well-being. They only care about how the homeless disturbs their daily routine.