The problem with those silly numbers represented by bad faith actors is they’re akin to counting your bugs at the end of the year, dividing those into your annual budget and claiming you spent $/bug.
Think about what they’re claiming and how it would change if they were more successful - e.g. if by some breakthrough at the same budget level, they cut the number of homeless people in half —- their cost/person would look much worse…
That 57k would provide a huge runway for people to get their footing. Say 5 months of expenses, where they can maintain their address, phone, shower regularly, have a safe place to keep food, etc.
Once you lose your residence, those things snowball. How do you apply for a job without a permanent mailing address? Where do you keep your nice interview clothes? How can you be contacted when your phone was stolen from your locker at the shelter for the second time that month?
Take away the stigma of the homeless and ask, if any regular normal person, drop them in SF with 57K, can they live?
Or would they become homeless too?
Because it is expensive.