This might go down as one of the weirdest threads in Jags forum history. Also, you don't have Asperger's.

All right let's get back on topic.  Maybe mikesez will share his research supporting his claim that eviction causes mental illness.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

This might go down as one of the weirdest threads in Jags forum history. Also, you don't have Asperger's.

All right let's get back on topic.  Maybe mikesez will share his research supporting his claim that eviction causes mental illness.

It's intuitive that homelessness will be bad for your brain.

You're never going to see a controlled experiment on that, though. All scientists can say is that they are correlated. Same story with substance abuse.  There is a strong correlation between substance abuse and homelessness but it's not possible, ethically, to show which way the causation goes.  

Further, most homeless people don't have mental illness and most don't abuse drugs. But if you feel sure that all we have to do is "treat the drug problem" then you should be equally sure that we need to "treat the mental health problem".  

Meanwhile, assuming you're successful in treating those problems, where are they going to live after treatment? 
Lack of affordable housing is the problem at the beginning and the end.  And that has been proven, because rent and wage data are much higher quality than data on mental illness and drug use.  High rent causes homelessness.  Rent control does not lower rent.  Only building more housing lowers rent.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This might go down as one of the weirdest threads in Jags forum history. Also, you don't have Asperger's.

Yeah, certainly not MY intent when i posted this.

---

All right let's get back on topic.  Maybe mikesez will share his research supporting his claim that eviction causes mental illness.

It's intuitive that homelessness will be bad for your brain.

You're never going to see a controlled experiment on that, though. All scientists can say is that they are correlated. Same story with substance abuse.  There is a strong correlation between substance abuse and homelessness but it's not possible, ethically, to show which way the causation goes.  

Further, most homeless people don't have mental illness and most don't abuse drugs. But if you feel sure that all we have to do is "treat the drug problem" then you should be equally sure that we need to "treat the mental health problem".  

Meanwhile, assuming you're successful in treating those problems, where are they going to live after treatment? 
Lack of affordable housing is the problem at the beginning and the end.  And that has been proven, because rent and wage data are much higher quality than data on mental illness and drug use.  High rent causes homelessness.  Rent control does not lower rent.  Only building more housing lowers rent.

I'd be interested in seeing links supporting this statement.  Otherwise, it's as useless as the keyboard you typed it on.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

All right let's get back on topic.  Maybe mikesez will share his research supporting his claim that eviction causes mental illness.

It's intuitive that homelessness will be bad for your brain.

You're never going to see a controlled experiment on that, though. All scientists can say is that they are correlated. Same story with substance abuse.  There is a strong correlation between substance abuse and homelessness but it's not possible, ethically, to show which way the causation goes.  

Further, most homeless people don't have mental illness and most don't abuse drugs. But if you feel sure that all we have to do is "treat the drug problem" then you should be equally sure that we need to "treat the mental health problem".  

Meanwhile, assuming you're successful in treating those problems, where are they going to live after treatment? 
Lack of affordable housing is the problem at the beginning and the end.  And that has been proven, because rent and wage data are much higher quality than data on mental illness and drug use.  High rent causes homelessness.  Rent control does not lower rent.  Only building more housing lowers rent.

There are so many flawed premises in this post. Where are you getting the data that most people in these cities that are homeless are not on drugs or have a mental illness. Let's start there. Then we can try to figure out why these cities have a disproportionate amount of homeless.

---

All right let's get back on topic.  Maybe mikesez will share his research supporting his claim that eviction causes mental illness.

It's intuitive that homelessness will be bad for your brain.

You're never going to see a controlled experiment on that, though. All scientists can say is that they are correlated. Same story with substance abuse.  There is a strong correlation between substance abuse and homelessness but it's not possible, ethically, to show which way the causation goes.  

Further, most homeless people don't have mental illness and most don't abuse drugs. But if you feel sure that all we have to do is "treat the drug problem" then you should be equally sure that we need to "treat the mental health problem".  

Meanwhile, assuming you're successful in treating those problems, where are they going to live after treatment? 
Lack of affordable housing is the problem at the beginning and the end.  And that has been proven, because rent and wage data are much higher quality than data on mental illness and drug use.  High rent causes homelessness.  Rent control does not lower rent.  Only building more housing lowers rent.

You're equating eviction with extended homelessness, which is incorrect.  Everything that follows in your post is meaningless, because you don't understand the topic of discussion.  Why don't you look up the definitions of both and try again?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

This might go down as one of the weirdest threads in Jags forum history. Also, you don't have Asperger's.

Yeah, certainly not MY intent when i posted this.

---

It's intuitive that homelessness will be bad for your brain.

You're never going to see a controlled experiment on that, though. All scientists can say is that they are correlated. Same story with substance abuse.  There is a strong correlation between substance abuse and homelessness but it's not possible, ethically, to show which way the causation goes.  

Further, most homeless people don't have mental illness and most don't abuse drugs. But if you feel sure that all we have to do is "treat the drug problem" then you should be equally sure that we need to "treat the mental health problem".  

Meanwhile, assuming you're successful in treating those problems, where are they going to live after treatment? 
Lack of affordable housing is the problem at the beginning and the end.  And that has been proven, because rent and wage data are much higher quality than data on mental illness and drug use.  High rent causes homelessness.  Rent control does not lower rent.  Only building more housing lowers rent.

I'd be interested in seeing links supporting this statement.  Otherwise, it's as useless as the keyboard you typed it on.

"The National Coalition for the Homeless has found that 38% of homeless people are alcohol dependent, and 26% are dependent on other harmful chemicals."[url=https://www.addictioncenter.com/drugs/][/url]

https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/homelessness/

Those are significant minorities,  much higher than what they are in the population with homes, but they are still minorities.
The numbers for diagnosed mental illness among the homeless vs homed are similar to the numbers for drug and alcohol use.

---

It's intuitive that homelessness will be bad for your brain.

You're never going to see a controlled experiment on that, though. All scientists can say is that they are correlated. Same story with substance abuse.  There is a strong correlation between substance abuse and homelessness but it's not possible, ethically, to show which way the causation goes.  

Further, most homeless people don't have mental illness and most don't abuse drugs. But if you feel sure that all we have to do is "treat the drug problem" then you should be equally sure that we need to "treat the mental health problem".  

Meanwhile, assuming you're successful in treating those problems, where are they going to live after treatment? 
Lack of affordable housing is the problem at the beginning and the end.  And that has been proven, because rent and wage data are much higher quality than data on mental illness and drug use.  High rent causes homelessness.  Rent control does not lower rent.  Only building more housing lowers rent.

You're equating eviction with extended homelessness, which is incorrect.  Everything that follows in your post is meaningless, because you don't understand the topic of discussion.  Why don't you look up the definitions of both and try again?

What did I ever do to you? Pick on someone else.
If you have to pick on me, at least read what I write.  I didn't "equate eviction with extended homelessness." I didn't even mention eviction in that post.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is the problem I have with statistics and polls and studies. Not every homeless person has been asked the questions and most won't answer, if they even understand the question. Percentages don't mean anything if you're not showing the number of people questioned vs the number of homeless people in that area. If you're only asking 42% of the homeless the question then your answer isn't correct. And you will never get a solid number of homeless in an area. It's impossible.

---

This is the problem I have with statistics and polls and studies. Not every homeless person has been asked the questions and most won't answer, if they even understand the question. Percentages don't mean anything if you're not showing the number of people questioned vs the number of homeless people in that area. If you're only asking 42% of the homeless the question then your answer isn't correct. And you will never get a solid number of homeless in an area. It's impossible.

If you just don't believe in statistics, that's fine. But if we're not going to use statistics to see which one of us is right about homeless people, what are we going to use?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Imo, you are the one trying to get cute with statistics. Alcohol is a drug. It's mind altering and addictive. So even using your own data, 64% of homeless have an issue with substance abuse. That's not a minority last time I checked. Also, does that data look at those numbers collectively across the US or just in the cities we are discussing. Because it may be the case that these cities have a distinct problem than the entirety of the US.

Btw, what is up with you and your ilk saying we need to "believe" in things. It's either right or it's not. It doesn't take belief. Oh, guess what... statistics, data, science... all easily manipulated. It's the scrutiny of those subjects that leads to truth, not blind belief.

---

Imo, you are the one trying to get cute with statistics. Alcohol is a drug. It's mind altering and addictive. So even using your own data, 64% of homeless have an issue with substance abuse. That's not a minority last time I checked. Also, does that data look at those numbers collectively across the US or just in the cities we are discussing. Because it may be the case that these cities have a distinct problem than the entirety of the US.

Btw, what is up with you and your ilk saying we need to "believe" in things. It's either right or it's not. It doesn't take belief. Oh, guess what... statistics, data, science... all easily manipulated. It's the scrutiny of those subjects that leads to truth, not blind belief.

I agree alcohol is a drug, and I wish the article didn't split it up like that, but, I think you do need to brush up on your prob/stat skills before we proceed.
P(a or b) = P(a) + P(b) - P(a and b)

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is the problem I have with statistics and polls and studies. Not every homeless person has been asked the questions and most won't answer, if they even understand the question. Percentages don't mean anything if you're not showing the number of people questioned vs the number of homeless people in that area. If you're only asking 42% of the homeless the question then your answer isn't correct. And you will never get a solid number of homeless in an area. It's impossible.

If you just don't believe in statistics, that's fine. But if we're not going to use statistics to see which one of us is right about homeless people, what are we going to use?

Have you ever been homeless? Have you had family members that were homeless and/or addicts, and/or had mental illness? Have you worked with them? Volunteered with organizations that serve them? I can say yes to all of these and I can tell you that in the areas I have this experience in, I don't need statistics because I've been in it or been around it. 

It's not up to me to figure this stuff out. When I can help those who are less fortunate, I do, and I can do it without having to know anything other than they need help. They don't care about stats and polls and any of that. If they're able to function, the ones who are not addicts or with serious mental illness, they care about their safety and their next meal. They care about the weather and do they have a place to sleep that night. They worry that they nice jacket someone gave them might be taken by the aggressive jerk down the street.  

The addicts and the mentally ill are a whole different subject with different needs.

---

If you just don't believe in statistics, that's fine. But if we're not going to use statistics to see which one of us is right about homeless people, what are we going to use?

Have you ever been homeless? Have you had family members that were homeless and/or addicts, and/or had mental illness? Have you worked with them? Volunteered with organizations that serve them? I can say yes to all of these and I can tell you that in the areas I have this experience in, I don't need statistics because I've been in it or been around it. 

It's not up to me to figure this stuff out. When I can help those who are less fortunate, I do, and I can do it without having to know anything other than they need help. They don't care about stats and polls and any of that. If they're able to function, the ones who are not addicts or with serious mental illness, they care about their safety and their next meal. They care about the weather and do they have a place to sleep that night. They worry that they nice jacket someone gave them might be taken by the aggressive jerk down the street.  

The addicts and the mentally ill are a whole different subject with different needs.

I have never been homeless.  I have an uncle I don't know well who has been through a lot of stuff like that.  
I have volunteered to work with the homeless many times.  Always under a larger dedicated organization.  I just go where they say and do what they say to do.  
As far as talking to them, yes I have, at length, and they told me the same things they told you.  It's heartbreaking how things get stolen from people who already have so little.

I want to have a conversation where we "figure this stuff out."  You don't.  That's fine.  The conversation you want to have is important too.

There are overlapping categories of homeless people.
Homeless by choice "I don't want to be tied down."
Homeless due to mental illness.  Some of these are open to treatment if offered, some aren't.
Homeless due to addiction. Some of these are sobering up, some aren't.
Homeless due to lack of funds or high rent.  Some of these people have jobs, some don't.  

You're probably better than me at relating to the homeless and helping them one on one.  I've listened to them like I said, but I doubt I ever really helped by listening.  I have no advice to offer them. You might be great at that, given your experiences.

Anyhow, we should be able to agree, a significant number of homeless people in Seattle aren't addicted.  It doesn't matter if it's a majority or not.  It's significant.  You said yourself that in your experience not all of them are addicted.  Why would Seattle and Vancouver be any different? A significant number of them wouldn't be homeless at all if there was simply an apartment available at a rent price they could afford.  

With housing costs on the west coast so out of line compared to anywhere else, am I wrong to focus on that?

Maybe I am wrong.  There is another major difference between Seattle and Providence that none of you have mentioned.  In Providence, actually in most of the US east of the Rockies, it is considered "constitutional" for the police to tell someone "you can't sleep here" and arrest them if they don't move along.  In the 9th federal judicial circuit, that is not the case.  That one difference makes it much easier for police to get a person into treatment vs. releasing them to the streets.  And its not anything that any city on the west coast decided.  The 9th judicial circuit decided it for them.  The Supreme Court should consider these cases, but they wont.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Imo, you are the one trying to get cute with statistics. Alcohol is a drug. It's mind altering and addictive. So even using your own data, 64% of homeless have an issue with substance abuse. That's not a minority last time I checked. Also, does that data look at those numbers collectively across the US or just in the cities we are discussing. Because it may be the case that these cities have a distinct problem than the entirety of the US.

Btw, what is up with you and your ilk saying we need to "believe" in things. It's either right or it's not. It doesn't take belief. Oh, guess what... statistics, data, science... all easily manipulated. It's the scrutiny of those subjects that leads to truth, not blind belief.

I agree alcohol is a drug, and I wish the article didn't split it up like that, but, I think you do need to brush up on your prob/stat skills before we proceed.
P(a or b) = P(a) + P(b) - P(a and b)

Yeah. My bad. Was on my phone and misread that. Still, there is a chance it's over 50%, and I still think it's stupid to conflate national rates with local rates for the purpose of diagnosis. The relationship to availability and legality of drugs and alcohol will drastically change those numbers based on local policies. And this says nothing of lack of policing the vagrants which would help address mental problems.

Here's a document from the city of Seattle in an attempt to diagnose their problems with regards to homelessness and addiction. Surprise, surprise.... 55% of the homeless admitted to drug use. That's not a scientific survey, either. There's a good chance a lot of them are lying. 

City of Seattle Homeless Needs Assessment March 2017 - DocumentCloud

11% of them identified as refugees. 13% reported becoming homeless in the US but outside of the state or county, indicating a migration based on lax laws (even though the city said they couldn't figure out a reason for the migration, lol). 30% of these people are chronically homeless. 76% admit to having been approached by a case worker for alternative shelter but denied it. 

Only 11% indicated rent prices as the primary source... which probably overlaps with the 13% having identified having full time jobs. So, yeah... that's probably the group you are imagining in your head makes up the majority of the homeless in Seattle, which just isn't the case.

I mean, dude... you have got to stop regurgitating talking points and question things that don't match what your eyes see.

---

https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness

Another good read. Probably a good counter to whatever progressive nonsense that took you in the wrong direction.

Should I do Vancouver next?

---

https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness

Another good read. Probably a good counter to whatever progressive nonsense that took you in the wrong direction.

Should I do Vancouver next?

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?"

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness

Another good read. Probably a good counter to whatever progressive nonsense that took you in the wrong direction.

Should I do Vancouver next?

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

---

https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness

Another good read. Probably a good counter to whatever progressive nonsense that took you in the wrong direction.

Should I do Vancouver next?

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?"

No. We don't agree, because most times I don't read things with the hope it will fit my world view. That is his solution to high housing costs, which, while an issue in Seattle, is not the driving factor behind their problem. In what world are part time workers going to be able to afford rent? Even if I accept your premise that people can't get work because they are homeless (which isn't true according to the article), you still have to get them in housing to clean up to get a job. That's ALREADY being rejected by the vast majority of the homeless there. 

O’Brien and his supporters have constructed an elaborate political vocabulary about the homeless, elevating three key myths to the status of conventional wisdom. The first is that many of the homeless are holding down jobs but can’t get ahead. “I’ve got thousands of homeless people that actually are working and just can’t afford housing,” O’Brien told the Denver Post. But according to King County’s own survey data, only 7.5 percent of the homeless report working full-time, despite record-low unemployment, record job growth, and a record-high $15 Seattle minimum wage. The reality, obvious to anyone who spends any time in tent cities or emergency shelters, is that 80 percent of the homeless suffer from drug and alcohol addiction and 30 percent suffer from serious mental illness, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

The second key myth is that the homeless are “our neighbors,” native to Seattle. Progressive publications like The Stranger insist that “most people experiencing homelessness in Seattle were already here when they became homeless.” This assertion, too, clashes with empirical evidence. More than half of Seattle’s homeless come from outside the city limits, according to the city’s own data. Even this number might be vastly inflated, as the survey asks only “where respondents were living at the time they most recently became homeless”—so, for example, a person could move to Seattle, check into a motel for a week, and then start living on the streets and be considered “from Seattle.” More rigorous academic studies in San Francisco and Vancouver suggest that 40 percent to 50 percent of the homeless moved to those cities for their permissive culture and generous services. There’s no reason to believe that Seattle is different on this score.

The third myth: O’Brien and his allies argue that the street homeless want help but that there aren’t enough services. Once again, county data contradict their claims: 63 percent of the street homeless refuse shelter when offered it by the city’s Navigation Teams, claiming that “there are too many rules” (39.5 percent) or that “they are too crowded” (32.6 percent). The recent story about a woman’s “tent mansion” near the city’s Space Needle vividly illustrated how a contingent among the homeless chooses to live in the streets. “We don’t want to change our lifestyle to fit their requirements,” the woman told newscasters for a KIRO7 report, explaining how she and her boyfriend moved from West Virginia to Seattle for the “liberal vibe,” repeatedly refusing shelter. “We intend to stay here. This is the solution to the homeless problem. We want autonomy, right here.”

The homeless mythology is not merely anti-factual; it’s also a textbook example of what sociologists call pathological altruism, or “altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm,” as engineer Barbara A. Oakley explains. The city’s compassion campaign has devolved into permissiveness, enablement, crime, and disorder. Public complaints about homeless encampments from the first three months of this year are an array of horrors: theft, drugs, fighting, rape, murder, explosions, prostitution, assaults, needles, and feces. Yet prosecutors have dropped thousands of misdemeanor cases, and police officers are directed not to arrest people for “homelessness-related” offenses, including theft, destruction of property, and drug crimes. As Scott Lindsay, the city’s former top crime advisor, reported to former mayor Ed Murray: “The increase in street disorder is largely a function of the fact that heroin, crack, and meth possession has been largely legalized in the city over the past several years. The unintended consequence of that social policy effort has been to make Seattle a much more attractive place to buy and sell hard-core drugs.”

This is what is being argued by conservatives here. Democrat policies, from rent control to permissiveness and enablement, have created this problem. You want to dance in circles to avoid admitting it. You want to ignore what you can see with your eyes.

---

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

I'm advocating for affordable market rate housing.
I'm not advocating for free housing.
I agree that many homeless people want to stay homeless and can't think long term.  But many of them are not in that category.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

---

https://youtube.com/shorts/13FO8uHWXlw?feature=share

---