[softg]

>Given how much money governments spend on nonsense, why can't we take some money, and build simple, but quality and stable shelter for people?

A better question is, given how much money governments spend on nonsense, why can't we take some money, and build actual housing for people? Surely a society that can produce semiconductors and fighter jets etc. is capable of assembling few thousand bricks/wood/whatever and build homes.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If we had thousands of homeless shelters we might end up seeing people moving to shelters from actual houses that they can ill afford. Some could argue that evictions should be easier because worst case there would be shelters to go to. You will degrade housing for poor people instead of helping the destitute.

[lazyasciiart]

> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That’s my take on your reasons for not allowing basic shelters, FWIW. We shouldn’t let “but it could have future negative effects!” be justification for having people dying of cancer sleep in doorways, or occasionally actually freeze to death on the literal street.

[lazyasciiart]

Also: we don’t even need to spend money on building the housing. We need to spend money to undo the thicket of NIMBY laws that ban increased density in many forms; ban cheap single rooming houses or even the modern “apodment” equivalent because people found it disgustingly poor to live in tiny units; ban the existence of rehabs or homeless shelters or supported housing for the mentally ill in residential areas, or the existence of sex offenders in any housing, because nobody wants those people near them…