(11-07-2022, 05:32 AM)p_rushing Wrote:

(11-06-2022, 10:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: From your link:
"The stubborn reality is that Seattle is expensive. The local government should encourage the creation of more affordable market-rate housing by increasing density and changing zoning laws, but for those not employed full-time—and that describes 92.5 percent of the homeless—it’s utopian to imagine that Seattle will become the city of Housing for All."

So we agree?
I never said more housing was a complete solution.  I said it was the best solution.  There is no complete solution.  The article agrees with me, but that author is spending most of his time arguing against a socialist strawman rather than advocating for the simple and non controversial solution that he actually agrees with. 
Instead the author starts talking himself out of it.  "Over 90 percent of the homeless don't have jobs" he says.  Of course they don't! If you tend to come into work without getting good rest, and without showering, and wearing the same clothes you wore the day before, you tend to lose your job! Changing and showering in the public bathroom is dicey, not always an option.  It starts to feel like the whole world is against you, which can be the starting point for depression and/or schizophrenia.  What he doesn't ask is, "what fraction of that 92.5% would be able to get their old job back if we got them a place to live?"

You miss the point again. Unless you provide a home plus all the current benefits they already get, they aren't choosing the home. There are reasons they don't take the already currently available housing.

You can't do drugs in a lot of the shelters or housing. It can affect benefits if you are getting a free place to live. Free places to live suck and don't have stuff.

When you are dealing with people who generally cannot think past a few hours in the future, deciding on which option is best for them is always going to lead to which one gives them the most cash for drugs.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Exactly. My sister refused to marry her fiance for nesrly two decades because if she did she would lose Medicaid as her insurance.  The only reason she changed her mind is they couldn't buy a house with her VA loan if they weren't married since her fiance, now husband, makes the money. 

There are many, many people on government assistance who will take lesser paying jobs to stay on that assistance. Whether it be housing, SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, etc., they know how much they can make to stay on it.

---