3 ms·
surely you are not arguing it won't go down at all, right? So the question really is, what amount of homelessness will disappear. It may be that it is not cost
by mbfg 4y ago
surely you are not arguing it won't go down at all, right? So the question really is, what amount of homelessness will disappear. It may be that it is not cost effective. That is a reasonable possibility, i suppose. I think tho, it is a difficult prediction to make, and so shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
- PKop 4y agoYou'll be subsidizing their drug habit, and increasing the number of homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicted people that reside in your city that taxes will have to pay for (simply to exist in the houses you gave them, and keep abusing drugs). Of course it won't be cost effective because it's not accomplishing anything except paying them to ruin whatever building you give them, which they likely won't stay in anyways. They're out there because they want to be out there doing drugs. At the very least, the drug addiction would have to be stopped, which isn't likely in any case, but certainly not by just giving them a house. There's an entire thriving economy in SF with jobs these people could be doing. What aren't they doing them? If cost of living is too expensive there, why not go to a cheaper city and do work there? If they have skills to be a white collar worker, SF is a great place to do that work and easily afford housing. Why aren't they doing it? Mental illness and drugs dominate the problem by such an order of magnitude that anything else save for harsh imprisonment to get off streets....especially subsidization of their lifestyle, will accomplish less than nothing.