A. I think that's a vast oversimplification.

B. I would like to address the housing crisis per se as a first line of defense rather than wait until people are homeless and then try to decide who merits help and what the cost-benefit ratio is and etc.

For many people, if there was enough affordable housing, this whole argument about their merits and defects and etc wouldn't happen at all. There would, no doubt, be other arguments but my research indicates lack of affordable housing is the primary issue here.

I wish there was a sane and humane way of shutting off the infinite supply of out-of-state (and, increasingly, international) transients. Our homeless programs here in Portland are absolutely overwhelmed with people who arrive here daily from all across the country. Recent arrivals have been either a plurality or an outright majority of our homeless population for many years now.

I’d absolutely choose going all-in on affordable housing over a return to the war on drugs or doubling down on catastrophic decrim. But without limits on in-migration for social programs, the idea seems frustratingly doomed from the start.

Isn't that what you have a Federal Government for in the US? Naturally if just one city starts some programs it can't take on the entire US population of homeless people.

The solution to this in-migration should be clear. These programs need to be offered in every single city in the entire country. People need to pay more taxes to fund social programs. I'm clearly not American ;)

A federal solution is the only solution that has any chance of working. But I don’t see it as working without restrictions on migration, like a residency system of some kind. Not everyone gets to live in affordable Santa Barbara housing, obviously, some people have to live in Toledo or even Gary. Anything that isn’t market must be restricted in some way, even the USSR didn’t let everyone live in Moscow even though most wanted to.

Not sure how the USSR is relevant, in the USSR people had no freedom to choose anything.

But your point is valid. That said there's still probably enough friction in the system such that someone living in a certain place isn't just going to move to Santa Barbara. Moving is expensive and has uncertainties. People coming today to places like Portland or Vancouver, BC, are desperate. If they had some basic support where they're currently living they would be a lot less likely to take those risks.

Yes, but there are people where there is not much more friction than the cost or donation of a greyhound bus ticket, who we are talking about in this story. There is also a trend that people move to where their addiction isn’t going to get them thrown in jail, social services are better, and they won’t freeze to death outside in the winter.

I’m not sure if people would stay put in say great falls MT if the support was better. But even among the well to do housed, they often move from these towns because the economic opportunities are better in larger richer cities. People have freedom of movement in the USA and mostly use it across the economic spectrum.

You would discover two very different problems between those where housing costs too much but were functional otherwise, and the other problem of completely non-functioning people where even cheap housing is too expensive since they can’t hold even a minimum wage job.

The only debate right now is whether the first category mostly leads to the second category (and vice versa if the second mostly comes from the first). That is should we just treat the categories the same or not, then more affordable housing would help if most people in category two are coming from one. If the assumption is wrong, we will still see people on the streets even if housing is affordable.

The other part of the debate is whether these problems are local or national, which has implications in how homeless programs are funded and where the affordable housing should be built. If all of the country’s homeless decides to move to SF, Seattle, LA for their affordable housing, the program will obviously fail.

Let me try this one more time and then I give up:

You: "Let's throw a bunch a people off a cliff and then assess who is worth saving afterwards!"

Me: "Let's stop throwing people off a cliff. If we stop doing that, we can stop arguing about who is too broken to save and whether or not it's a personal character defect that they ended up more broken than others who got thrown off the same cliff."

You didn’t even read my comment, so I give up. Ok, everyone just come to Seattle for their affordable housing, because DoreenMichele doesn’t want to think about the problem and would rather just throw half baked solutions at it.

Oh you don't understand? It's simple--BC's lawmakers were presented with the option of either making housing affordable nationwide or criminalizing drug use in their city. Darn lawmakers always picking wrong!

Housing is affordable in many cities where people don’t want to live, at least in the states. If everyone wants to live on the west coast though, is it even possible to just make housing more affordable on one place until everyone lives there? If not, it basically means you induce more demand with lower home prices, so you wind up trying to fit a hundred million people in a few big metros.

Lawmakers can’t magic up affordable housing, especially at the federal level. I get people have crazy ideas, but this is the craziest. We could do what Singapore or Austria does with a residency system, though, but progressives don’t like that either.

Hope it was obvious but I was being sarcastic. Suggesting we simply "fix housing" is akin to suggesting we just "eradicate poverty" when confronted with widespread, immediate famine.

Eh, either way my comment would have been the same. This is a wicked problem in the classic sense.

And then everyone clapped.

Me: "Thanks guys!"