Awesome, thanks for clarifying. This makes a lot of sense to me.

> I’m not arguing for work requirements or time limits

> I don’t think it is insane or inhumane to require people to work

Sorry if I'm missing something, but aren't these directly antithetical?

The parent seems to be saying that they are not sure whether work requirements are necessary for a support program to succeed, but that the requirements do not appear to be unreasonable or obviously counter-productive.

Why did you cut off the sentence? What I said had nothing to do with employment requirements but about the need for supportive services to enable unhoused persons to achieve the next steps in their path to stability.

If the money is just going back to the drug dealers I would think that would just exacerbate the problem and make it even worse, as it just encourages drug dealers and producers to make and sell more.

There definitely needs to be case workers or someone involved to help provide these people a path to recovery.

I don't really understand the point you are making. "I'm not arguing for work requirements... But I don't think its insane to require people to work." So, you are in favor of work requirements then?

This article has an extremely click bait headline; it's entirely about one encampment and not at all about what the $17B is being spent on or any other aspect of the homelessness problem.

Nevertheless, one thing pointed out in this article is that some of the homeless do have jobs, so the issue of work requirements is not simple. And I think you need some evidence for your suggestion that anyone is being handed cash and spending 90% of it on drugs.

He said "I don’t think it is insane or inhumane to require people to work with supportive assistance", meaning to have the people engage with supportive assistance. Not "get a job before we help you" but "talk to the counselor while we're helping you"