4 ms·
> That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people. Unfortunately you can't just live inside a pile of cash. The problems surrounding homelessness are
by jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
> That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people.
Unfortunately you can't just live inside a pile of cash. The problems surrounding homelessness are slightly more complicated than you are letting on, and "we spent the money to buy a telescope instead" is not one of them.
- podgaj 5y agoI am homeless. The problem is not complicated. I need money and I do not get enough on disability to live in an apartment near my doctors. So I live in a minivan for now. People who say "it's complicated" to these issues really just do not want to spend the money on caring for the worst off.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y agoBut it is complicated. Are there half a million vacant apartments whose landlords are willing to rent to homeless people for a government check? What does injecting $5.5B/yr to take vacant apartments off the market do to the already skyrocketing cost of housing? What we really need to do to solve the problem, without just making housing more expensive for everyone else, is massively increase the supply of cheap housing. But that's where all the resistance is. Because making housing affordable is in conflict with boosting the value of most voters' single largest investment. Also, how do you qualify people for this $11B/2year program? Is it just you get free housing if you make under a certain amount of money (or no money at all)? Because I think you'd find you have a lot more applicants than the current homeless population.