> The homeless are not some other population. They are people who currently lack housing. True, however not having housing then brings on a host of other probl

> The homeless are not some other population. They are people who currently lack housing. True, however not having housing then brings on a host of other problems. Basic sanitation and food are just 2 of those big issues - and the food issue is why the fire happened in this place. > With enough affordable housing, some people would never land on the street to start with. They would move to an SRO temporarily, get their act together and return eventually to more conventional housing. Or, they would do like what we see happen in China and Japan - where the prices keep going up and up and up, and those people never leave the SROs. That's also a market eventuality, and a noted fact in those areas. This idea that SRO's are some "gift" to homeless and that they'll clean right up is a farce. > I am not talking about a homeless service. I am talking about policies that shrink the problem in part by preventing homelessness to begin with. I have a completely curveball outfield suggestion: We the government/people build SROs. If you're homeless, you can have 1. End of discussion. Because shoving this on "The Market" is how in part why they became homeless. So yeah, splatter more "market". It's about as true as trickle-down theory (aka: getting pissed on by above). > I will add not all homeless are completely penniless, and I have formally studied the subject. Yeah, so did I. I was homeless. You researched it for a single sociology class. When I was homeless, we met lots of students from the local university. The homeless epidemic has gotten nowhere but worse. But hey, there's some papers published reaffirming time and again the same things.