"is not living in a tent or RV" seems like a fairly obvious bar for "can afford SF". Whether or not you support that is a different question, however.

If you won’t quantify your expectations, would you mind elaborating on what the minimum qualified definition is for you? In terms of what must be met, not what must not be met? I can agree it’s nice to not have folks living in tents and RVs.

We seem to be talking past one another for some reason. The bar is "is not living in a tent". It means living in a place that isn't a tent. We can rathole into how that wants to be defined exactly, and pick that apart, but that doesn't seems all that interesting to me but if you'd like to propose something we can iterate on specific wording as to what constitutes "living in a tent".

Still, the California building code 709b discusses sleeping and alludeds so a definition for bedroom, so going in that direction, in order to be not living in a tent, a person would need to have their own access to a legal bedroom, as defined by the building code. There is a $20k fine if people are sleeping in, eg, the twitter offices, which was not zoned for that.

No worries. I’m just wondering what you are expecting to constitute the minimum since the next logical step is to ask where the government should then draw the line on helping folks or essentially kicking them out of the city. Right now your definition lets folks lucky enough to have relatives with an extra couch stay while orphans would be gone at 18 just by dumb luck.

Oh. I wasn't the one saying we should kick people out who can't afford SF, I was just taking issue with "can afford to live in SF" as some undefinable standard. If I had my druthers, we'd subsidize and encourage building housing until the city looked like Hong Kong and everybody had places to live, but I'm not in charge of things.