[WheelsAtLarge]

Aside from drugs and mental issues, it seems like letting people live in the streets invites others to the lifestyle. Locally we had a man build a home on the sidewalk and brag about what a great job he had done. He thought that the public sidewalk was a place where he could build as he pleased. Some people believe that it's ok to do whatever they want in the common areas of out cities. There's also the constant problems that are associated with sharing a space with others. We, as a society, have made it unpopular for large families to live in one place. So, the less one lives with others the less likely you will ever want to live with someone in general. It's much better to live on your own even if it means living on the street for some.

It's next to impossible to give everyone their own home in large cities so we have to think about building homes in the outskirts of cities and ban people from living in the common areas of our cities.

Los Angeles is spending millions to house people in hotels. Spending that much tax money can't continue forever not to mention the fact that it's not fixing the problem. Living alone in your own home where ever you want is not something the taxpayers can or will fund forever. We need to make some hard decisions and it's not providing a forever home for everyone that wants to live alone.

[foxyv]

> Los Angeles is spending millions to house people in hotels. Spending that much tax money can't continue forever

Los Angeles has a budget of $43 Billion. Their current budget for homelessness is $1.3 billion. Typically the cost to have people on the streets is significantly higher than simply housing them due to Law Enforcement and Emergency medical costs alone. Los Angeles can certainly afford to house them for as long as necessary. In fact it can't afford NOT to.

[GauntletWizard]

This is an insane assertion. Housing the drug-vagrants does not remove the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical for them. It does not even significantly reduce them; In fact, if often increases them because if you have a crack-house rather than a crack-tent, it's harder/more time for law enforcement and medical to deal with; More spread out, actual doors to transit through, and all of the problems with serving warrants to homes.

That said, I'm still all for housing them in permanent buildings. With steel bars.

[thewildginger]

Here's some evidence to directly contradict what you're saying.

https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Ending...

Evidence points to what the original poster said. It may seem counter intuitive but well, solutions often are.

[foxyv]

The cost to house an inmate in California is $106k/yr.

[ttonkytonk]

You sure do seem anxious to make "hard decisions" for people used to them.

How about some "hard decisions" for people who aren't, e.g. people who can, all by themselves, afford thousands of private homes forever?

[JoeyBananas]

What are you even implying? That nobody deserves to own a home? Or people with homes are the real problem?

I don't see any reasonable way to interpret this comment

[ttonkytonk]

I am implying that the real problem (or close to it) is the unlimited acquisition of wealth - I mean individuals who can afford thousands of homes.

But speaking of reason - it certainly has its limits. If reason is ignored, it may well eventually succumb to anger.

[WheelsAtLarge]

Anxious? Time has passes for patience. We needs to get something done. This has been a decades old issue that's only getting worse. We need to try different solutions.