Maybe, just maybe we dont have to throw our hands up in the air and say theres nothing to do while we allow a small group of people to make our cities unlivable.
If you don't believe me, try selling a luxury good targeting a rich buyer on FB Marketplace and see if you can set the pricing arbitrarily high.
There's also a cultural factor at work. Allowing a relative to be homeless causes loss of face so family members feel more obligated to pitch in and help them out, sometimes to the extent of providing a free room. (I'm stereotyping a bit here but it's generally true.)
Russia has a similar system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_in_Russi...
There's very few people homeless because they can't afford it even despite the insane rent prices. Usually it's a ton of untreated mental issues and/or drug addiction.
Building more houses will help regular people a ton but not the homeless. More shelters will. Good and affordable mental healthcare too. But that's "communism" so I guess that won't fly in MAGA America.
But in Europe I've mainly seen people with mental/drug issues and those from fringe groups like gypsies. There have been plenty of projects involving giving them housing for free, but it never works. The neighborhood quickly becomes a no-go area with constant police presence. They sell all the inventory for drugs, flats become dirty and infested etc.
There's a reason these people are homeless and that has to be solved first.
But if regular people are homeless then the system is really failing them on basic welfare :(
If this is common for regular people in the US then the system is really letting them down and I'm starting to understand why people vote for Trump (though I'm sure this will only make things worse for them)
I expect you are correct about the votes for Trump. Voting for change without understanding if that change is likely to be good or bad. Public policy issues are complex and most people probably don't have the time or energy to understand exactly what they are voting for.
Prisoners can pay for their share by providing their labor.
"They earn, on average, between 13 cents and 52 cents per hour nationwide. " https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/captive-labor-exploit...
Uhh as opposed to some private business that should just, what, deal with it? Who else should be responsible for solving homelessness if not the public?
Prison is the worst way for the public to solve this problem.
It’s more expensive (incarceration is extremely expensive), eliminates the possibility of the individuals being productive, introduces them to people who will push them towards more crime (not just the apparent “crime” of not being able to afford a shelter), etc.
> Maybe its easier just to build more housing.
Maybe instead of letting a George Carlin joke from 30 years ago become reality by calling them something different, patting ourselves on the back, then delegating responsibility to whoever's not building houses and subsequently (often) protest the construction of those houses, we should accept that the public is and should be on the hook for them. If not, then we're just a bunch of pathetic individualists who haven't realized the social safety around them is about as strong as cheap wet toilet paper.
Living somewhere is not on its own a contribution to society, and building more housing is not enough to uplift people out of severe fentanyl or meth addiction; people on the street are not having conversations about esoteric zoning policies and hoping studio apartments stay at only $2500/m because supply increased marginally quicker over the next 10 years while birth rates dropped and immigration slowed.
Supply is an issue, but it's often a red herring. Homeless people are the public, we are the public, blight and suffering within society is society's issue, not just when the Olympics roll around or the leader of a major foreign nation rolls up
Maybe its easier just to build more housing.