And then when the drug affected individuals refuse help? You end up with downtowns like Seattle, Portland, LA, etc

The evidence indicates that primary cause of homelessness is housing affordability. Shelters are over-subscribed and programs have so many strings attached that it is nearly impossible to remain on them. The trope of drug addicts who are homeless by choice is a talking point to distract from the real issue of housing shortages and gutless assistance programs. In addition, homeless people are often the target of crime.

Between 60-75% of homeless people are not on any drugs or alcohol. They are just homeless. In addition, Housing First initiatives have seen sharp drops in addiction.

Have you actually been to downtown Seattle/Portland? I have fairly recently. It's really not that bad.

But to that, I'd also point out that "refusing help" is hardly the reason seattle/portland have so many homeless people. A lot of these people have been priced out of apartments. Some have suffered from mental health issues (or have developed mental health issues after becoming homeless).

My son's teacher's aid was temporarily homeless while being fully employed. She was simply priced out of living anywhere. Do you think that was a result of substance abuse?

The attitude of your post is actually part of the reason homelessness is so bad. It's the view that people are homeless because they did something wrong to deserve it. Addressing homelessness requires compassion and funds. You can never make it go away all together, but you can relieve it simply by giving people a place to exist.

I think thread poster is only commenting on the smaller, yet much more visible mental ill homelessness.

While housing is the solution to true majority of homelessness (like your individual income experience with the teacher), people like the individual above above make valid observations. They’re pointing out problems that, at the very least, get intermingled with consequences of homes being unaffordable for all. This need not be a value judgement on their character. It is a value judgement on actions, which is something that not only is fair (all are in control of what they choose to do), but necessary for a functioning society (how else do you morally compel folks to follow laws and determine responsibility if not by one’s actions?).

The solution is to both make housing affordable to every person *and* ensure everyone who needs it takes it.

> Addressing homelessness requires compassion and funds.

If you're talking about working people being priced out of homes in stupidly low-density cities (which places like Seattle and Portland are), the greater part of the solution is just building more so that supply rises to match demand.

Artificially suppressing the supply of homes via government action (restrictive zoning) then helping the people who lost homes as a result via government action (social services funded by redistributive taxation) is just so wasteful that I don't even know where to begin.

> the greater part of the solution is just building more so that supply rises to match demand.

Just like building more lanes to match the demand of traffic, yeah?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

Expanding roadways are an example of induced demand, which means that for some class of things, as it gets cheaper (or qualitatively better/less costly, as in the example of traffic), more people consume it by shifting preferences from alternatives, and in the end it's just as pricey (or qualitatively poor) as before. Is your point that as housing gets cheaper in a place, more people will be housed and eventually the equilibrium goes back higher?

If so, isn't that the goal? More people are still housed than before.

> Have you actually been to downtown Seattle/Portland? I have fairly recently. It's really not that bad.

I was actually in downtown Seattle last night (not seeing Taylor Swift though). These people who line the streets are not in shelters because the shelters do not let them use drugs. They are in tent cities overdosing off fentanyl whilst virtue signalers like you scream that there isn't enough housing.

Across Lake Washington in Bellevue, where the median rent price is 50% higher, there are none of these drugs addicts, so if it is a housing problem, why are they all centered in Seattle? Because Seattle City Council, King County all allow it to happen.

You realize that your 'hot take' is that persecuted people will gravitate to areas where they aren't persecuted.

It seems you are simply saying that there should be no refuge... Al least not 'amongst' society.

Sounds good to me, I'd like to be able to visit local parks without having to watch out for needles

Solution is mandatory treatment when someone demonstrates they can’t take care of themselves AND as a result their behavior is causing problems for others.

Not the folks struggling to get housing (just build more and give it away for operating/maintenance cost, don’t recoup capital investment ). Just the few 10-20% of the highly visible ones with mental health problems (and the like 3% that are just asses- every large enough group of people has got ‘em!).

Understanding this stuff isn't beyond puritans or teetotalers. Believing in an easy solution sounds like addict/ex-addict thinking to me.

You sure? This comment looks like a misunderstanding at best and an indictment of your own character at worst. Automatically assuming people who use substances are addicts is extreme and wildly judgmental.

Who said the solution was easy? Do you think dismantling and rebuilding a huge portion of the penal code would somehow be easy? Do you think revitalizing and rebuilding our public mental health services is a cake walk?

Just because the solution can be expressed simply doesn't mean it's "easy".

I'm neither and addict or ex-addict. But I am an ex puritan/teetotaler. I'm well aware of how they think, preach, and talk about this stuff. I'm living proof that it's not beyond them, but the fact is you have to abandon your puritan/teetotaling beliefs to actually understand the problem.