Great, so it’s (possibly) a housing cost problem. There are now more per-capita housing units in the US than at any time in the past 20 years (and likely ever).

Great, so it’s (possibly) a housing cost problem. There are now more per-capita housing units in the US than at any time in the past 20 years (and likely ever). In the past four years, the US population grew 4M, and housing units grew 5M. There is currently 0.433 housing units per capita, more than enough to house every average household in the US. Those aren’t new units in SF or NY, so why do people stay homeless in those locations rather than move to lower cost of living area of the country? How do those cities think they can get someone from having no income or resources to being able to afford $2-3K rents? If it really is primarily housing affordability, is it not reasonable to tell people they can’t afford to live in that city? I don’t live in SF, even though my previous job was there, because cost of living and quality of life would have been worse than my current situation. I completely understand that increased housing cost is a driver of acute homelessness. I personally don’t subscribe to the idea that it is responsible for chronic homelessness. I also think the link’s analysis of policy is flawed. Benefit to rent ratio is not a granular enough measure. There are certainly some benefits that contribute more/less than others, the requirements to receive benefits, etc.