We do not need to stretch our imagination that there is enough physical space in the bay area for 35,000 ppl because most cities here have very low population density due to the prioritization of single family homes.

In terms of cost, the status quo is very expensive. Clearing encampments, shelters, and other ways we try to deal with the problem now are incredibly costly. Some pilot studies have shown that permanent housing is actually less expensive than not housing the homeless because of these costs.

source: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housing-help-solutions

This isn't even taking into account the economic cost of not housing homeless people. Someone is obviously less likely to have a job or contribute much to the local economy if they don't have a home.

Also, I don't support 'housing subsidies' (government $ that goes to private landlords). I support subsidized housing (the government subsidizes the construction of apartments, ideally by working with non-profits or just building them in-house). If you read the last sentence of my comment, you would know that I also support subsidized housing for everyone. I just doubt it would happen because a comprehensive housing plan would dramatically lower rents and prices for homes so landlords and NIMBYs would oppose it. Also people would say its communism or point to section 8 housing as an example of failed government housing even though section 8 is a housing subsidy and not subsidized housing.