I would hazard a guess that you support harm reduction strategies, those policies do not garner widespread support amongst the voting public. Further, even when it is, it is very easy for opponents to say, "Why are we giving drug addicts this money when school teachers haven't had a raise in five years and can't afford to live here?"
* level of negative externalities due to homeless people in city X goes down by Y%
* number of short-term homeless people in city X goes down by Y%
* number of chronically homeless people in city X goes down by Y%
* number of homeless people in city X goes down by Y% of which no more than Z% may be due to decreased arrival rate or increased departure rate of homeless people
* number of homeless people in city X goes down by Y% without raising net tax burden in city X by more than Z%
* tax burden of homeless services primarily met by those who benefit financially from increased rents
* housing stock in city X increases by Y%
* median apartment rent in city X decreases by Y%
* average apartment rent in city X decreases by Y%
* apartment rent in city X keeps place with inflation
* Gini coefficient (income inequality) in city X decreases to at least Y
* unemployment rate in city X decreases to at least Y
* government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on acceptance of drug treatment
* government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on cessation of drug use
* government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on acceptance of mental health care
* government requires acceptance of drug treatment or mental health care as a condition of receiving services
* no increase in arrests for crimes often committed by homeless people
* substantial increase in arrests for crimes that significantly affect other people's property or quality of life
(this isn't even including broader-based changes to unemployment insurance, welfare, or health care systems)
That framework is really powerful in America and I've yet to see a narrative around harm reduction that resonates with most people, it just simply isn't attractive to spend tax money on needles and rent for drug addicts.
This. People will pitch their idea going into the experiment then torture the resulting data until it suggests that their proposal was the most effective.
It'd be great to, you know, not have the homeless problem. But when it's going to cost substantially more per person than the average person earns in a year, that just doesn't seem fair...
Again, it'd be great if everyone, you know, everyone could have a roof over their head. But how come if you work an average job you have to share an apartment with 2 other adults. And if you're poor and lucky, we just give you a brand new unit for free? And what about all the poor people that aren't lucky? They just get nothing, while someone else lives like a poor king.
There's got to be a better use for $600K...
While I like this one specifically, and think it has promise, what we really need to do is try 20 different ideas. Each should be a small randomized trial, with pre-registered outcome metrics.
Get all the conservatives, liberals, progressives, socialists in a room. Get them to agree on optimal outcomes (I actually don't think this is insane, as we often want the same thing). Then run a series of experiments, where each partisan leaning can propose an experiment.
Obviously, in real life with actual humans, this would never work. But I can dream...