It would cost less money than all that is already spent on homelessness combined, but violates the principle that real estate must function first as a wildly pr

It would cost less money than all that is already spent on homelessness combined, but violates the principle that real estate must function first as a wildly profitable speculative asset in expensive urban centers, which is why it’s verboten. You can set billions on fire with BS homelessness programs that both don’t compromise the underlying asset prices and provide myriad opportunities for graft, which is why they’re the favorite form of indirect taxation on real estate put in place by politicians. We already have and spend the money, just in the most corrupt and useless ways imaginable.