> This delusion that if only we build houses, the homeless, mentally ill and drug addicted will magically disappear from the streets...is based on what exactly?

Peer-reviewed research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20063061/ & https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/183666

i agree that this is delusional and i see it repeated a lot -- homelessness isn't just a byproduct of a lack of housing or a lack of affordable housing.

i remember having a conversation with a LICSW who did a tremendous amount of work with drug addicted and homeless populations; she explained that when she really needed to, she could "beg, borrow, or steal" a way to find better housing for someone, but that really wasn't the crux of solving the individual's problems, it's only one facet.

even if someone who has untreated mental illness or drug addiction suddenly has a great new place to live, they're not going to stay at that address long if their other needs aren't treated.

i'm not saying there shouldn't be more affordable housing ASAP, or that it wouldn't radically improve some lives, but i get the impression that a lot of folks think homelessness is mainly a housing problem when it's really not so simple, and i think that needs to change if the problems have any chance at getting improved.

If the "the homeless, mentally ill and drug addicted" can live in a tent they can live in a house. They may need assistance, the house may be nearly a blast-proof concrete box, but it can be made to work.

Houston has done it, and it can be done: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-...

surely you are not arguing it won't go down at all, right? So the question really is, what amount of homelessness will disappear. It may be that it is not cost effective. That is a reasonable possibility, i suppose. I think tho, it is a difficult prediction to make, and so shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

You'll be subsidizing their drug habit, and increasing the number of homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicted people that reside in your city that taxes will have to pay for (simply to exist in the houses you gave them, and keep abusing drugs). Of course it won't be cost effective because it's not accomplishing anything except paying them to ruin whatever building you give them, which they likely won't stay in anyways. They're out there because they want to be out there doing drugs. At the very least, the drug addiction would have to be stopped, which isn't likely in any case, but certainly not by just giving them a house.

There's an entire thriving economy in SF with jobs these people could be doing. What aren't they doing them? If cost of living is too expensive there, why not go to a cheaper city and do work there? If they have skills to be a white collar worker, SF is a great place to do that work and easily afford housing. Why aren't they doing it? Mental illness and drugs dominate the problem by such an order of magnitude that anything else save for harsh imprisonment to get off streets....especially subsidization of their lifestyle, will accomplish less than nothing.