Tourist cites have similar problems...who can afford to live in Sun Valley and clean those homes/hotels or wait on them?
Some people react reflexivly against any government role in enforcing mixed income development. Sometimes they even drape themslves in the mantle of the free market. Before that discussion begins, I would just note that cities used to be much denser, with people of all income levels rubbing shoulders on a daily basis. There were plusses and minuses, but for the poor, it meant that jobs were nearby, and the school systems were functional. That was the city under a real free market regime.
It was government that built the highways and subsidized the water and sewer infrastructure to support the mass flight from the cities to sprawling suburbs. You may applaud or deplore that policy, but do not confuse it with the free market. Free market cities would be denser, taking advantage of economies of scale and existing infrastructure. It was government, utilizing eminent domain and subsidizing mass homeownership and suburbanization, that trumped market dynamics in favor of housing policies which were politically popular with middle class voters but which left the poor behind.
As the cities began to spiral downhill, LBJ then stepped in to save the day, and created a disaster. It was government, in the name of urban renewal, that tore down the organic communities in which the poor still lived, and herded them into projects. This was supposed to be an improvement. It was not. It was government that punched arterial roads through urban neighborhoods to for the convenience of commuters. And it was government, in the suburbs, that utilized exclusionary zoning to prevent the poor from escaping, by doubling or tripling up in apartments or via multi-family housing out in cul-de-sac land. In a free market, the poor would have moved to jobs. But we do not have a free market when it comes to zoning and occupancy.
Government's fingerprints are all over the problem. Just sayin'.