[Fargren]

I have a hard time reconciling this comment. If you gave each homeless person a house/apartment, in what way wouldn't you have solved homelessness? Are you saying many/most of them would abandon, destroy or otherwise not use those houses?

[nathanaldensr]

Many people--perhaps the majority, even--are not homeless simply because they ran out of money to pay for housing; instead, they are homeless because they made life choices that led to them not being able to hold a job and pay for housing, or they have mental health issues that make it difficult for them to participate in a society where only those best able to adapt can afford good housing.

[ozim]

I like wording as in my opinion you managed to write it in a way where people are not to blame for their choices.

Yes they made choices in life that led them to not be able to hold a job and pay for housing - but to say it was "bad choices" one need context of their lives to judge that and in addition it might be the case that choice was made for them and they could not do much about it.

[ozim]

Maybe many would not destroy or abandon more like neglect or facilitate illicit activities. There is a lot of social work to be done but no one wants to pay for it.

There were (I think still are in many places) projects where municipality in Europe would create social housing and putting let's say "not that lucky people" in one place does not help but creates its own problems. Where just providing flats was not enough because later no one had time do social work or money to pay social workers.

I can say as a kid I was living in such a project, all of the "normal-city" people would refer to us as "special place" or "street of magic". Many people made their lives better or at least make it stable there. Some managed to burn down their flats creating problems for their neighbors. Then there was loads of shady stuff going on.