> "These are people who are at the very end of their rope who are begging other human beings for money so they can eat" This is the standard liberal refrain wh

> "These are people who are at the very end of their rope who are begging other human beings for money so they can eat" This is the standard liberal refrain when it comes to homelessness. As compared to "These are people too lazy to work for themselves and sustain themselves on the handouts of others" argument we hear constantly from conservative camps. Neither argument hold a lot of water, and in the end the homeless are considerably more complicated than either simplistic argument would suggest. Both arguments are deeply unfair to our society and the homeless, as it ignores the primary issues surrounding homelessness in exchange for simplistic feel-good fuzzies. You've conveniently ignored the big, giant, planet-sized elephant in the room: substance abuse and mental health in regards to homelessness. Without addressing this it is impossible to know what side of the line this homesless-wireless-tower thing finds itself. There is a large (I'd argue vast majority) of the homeless demographic where this would be absolutely exploitative, and there is a much smaller demographic where this may actually be helpful. Without knowing more details about how this was executed, it's impossible to say what's what. > "where they were yesterday when those homeless people didn't get $20." Perhaps, giving $20 to an aid organization. Directly funding the homeless is an issue that we can argue about till the cows come home and never come remotely close to consensus. Suffice it to say, there are many, many, legitimate concerns about its efficacy, and the money can be just as destructive as it can be rehabilitative. There is also the notion of whether or not rehabilitation should be a goal when it comes to homelessness. ... All in all, incredibly complicated and without easy answers.