[advael]

As anyone who's ever tried to study any complex phenomenon in a rigorous way knows, determining causality is fraught. But I think it's fair to say that most mental illnesses are exacerbated by living in stressful and uncertain conditions, and having shelter is a basic need no matter how crazy you are. Thus, this seems like a poor argument against providing housing

[qqtt]

But basic shelter is frequently available but ask homeless individuals why they don't use it. It can be unsafe, even trying to learn about the shelter or queuing up for access is unsafe as these areas are frequently overrun by dangerous elements for vulnerable populations. Ask hotel owners how it worked being forced to house homeless during the pandemic and various other times.

This is a complex issue no doubt, but it is the height of nativity to think we can use existing underutilized housing stock to solve or even help the existing homeless crisis. We have frequently tried it with poor results and poor outcomes. It is very very very hard to meaningfully address the existing homeless epidemic, which is intimately tied up with the opioid, general drug, and mental health epidemics, none of which we have any reasonable answers for.

[magicalist]

On the contrary, we've found as you actually build housing, prices go down (or at least rise more slowly) and homelessness goes down.

This argument is a variant of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can improve the lot of many long before you need to solve all addictions.

[imtringued]

You can also solve the problem before people get addicted. It won't turn up in any statistic, people will simply take it for granted.

[advael]

This sounds a lot like what we're trying is solutions that put the people the state is helping under their power and observation and do not give them ownership, autonomy, or any sense of stability surrounding their living situation. I'm not surprised that this kind of intervention often leads to abuse, nor that it's not desired by most people affected