> But the book makes a good case that it'd cost society less overall to just take care of people than to ignore rampant homelessness. It will cost the governme

> But the book makes a good case that it'd cost society less overall to just take care of people than to ignore rampant homelessness. It will cost the government less, no question, the analysis is great in this regard. But the reason it doesn't happen is because the analysis is incomplete. My theory is, housing a homeless person decreases the value of the land where they're housed severely and quickly, land that takes relatively an extremely long time to grow in value. That's why what always happens is expensive tents on worthless, unexploitable land (parking lots under highways, sidewalks, city parks). I personally think this is horrible, but I believe it's a better model of what really happens.