Obviously there's going to be some abuse of this system (by the homeless), but overall I think this is really cool, and I fail to see how this makes bank for an

Obviously there's going to be some abuse of this system (by the homeless), but overall I think this is really cool, and I fail to see how this makes bank for any of the orchestraters involved. Cities that deal with high levels of homelessness are usually places that are deemed unaffordable anyways by the common American. Also if the place is warm, has easy access to drugs, and generous help with minimal requirements of the beneficiary to receive that aid. I awknowledge there will always be individuals who would rather have awful living standards than assume any responsibilities, but for those people who actually want to forge a better life for themselves, who fell through the cracks and are homeless perhaps to poor decisions but otherwise want to stand back up, this is awesome. The article you labelled "SF -> ??" Specifically said it was tranporting them to family or friends who know that person, ie. someone who would have individual concern for them to get them back on their feet. > “We consider a person being removed from the street and reunited with a stable, loving family as the best possible outcome,” Hussey said. “This is not shifting the homeless problem to other cities. This is a person being removed from the street and being helped by the people who love them the most — their families.” "NV -> CA" ironically goes against your statement, because the article is saying that Nevada stopped sending people to SF. Also they were trying to replicate what SF was doing, sending them to families, but in the worst possible way that was guaranteed to fail, because they sent them to a location without contacting any family or even seeing if any lived where they were putting them. > Homeless patients are no longer bused to other areas and state officials want to move forward "NY -> Hawaii" is similar to the "SF -> ??" one because despite the title, they were sending them nationwide, not just Hawaii. Their approach was the most easily abused, because they paid for a year's worth of livelihood. However, for people who have real intentions to improve their lives, this provides great hope in that dream because they get a fresh start, and in a place that is not impossibly expensive to live in and guaranteeing future impoverishment. Regarding "WY -> UT", SLC, where they are being taken to in UT, is one of the few places where they focus on rehab rather than perpetual homelessness, and basically all homelessness programs are focused on addiction recovery, and acquisition of a job. It is illegal to beg there, or to give money to homeless, because the only possible way to be homeless there is by refusing rehabilitation. I have no proof of these comments of SLC, as this perspective is based on what I've heard from others, so it could be wrong, but I've heard nothing to the contrary. So I am again optimistic for this approach from Wyoming, although I think it'd be better if they just adopted the same system instead of overloading another states rehabs. The last article you posted has no relevancy to the topic, as it discusses migrants and the border issue, not homelessness, so I will skip it.