[IncreasePosts]

Notice how I never said they were.

[Groxx]

You do however seem to be implying "this won't work because some won't go along with it, therefore we should not do it".

In which case you're essentially saying "meth users decide everyone's housing status".

[IncreasePosts]

No, that is not what I'm saying. Notice, I never said we shouldn't do anything.

I'm saying reaching the state of "no homelessness" is dependent upon finding something to do with the worst of the homeless.

For a tech analogy, imagine you've architected a system that has 99.5% uptime. You might be able to imagine a way to get to 99.9% up time.

With enough resources, you might even be able to get to 99.99% uptime. With laser focus and a giant dedicated team and an immense budget, maybe you can get it to 99.995%.

But what would you do if some exec came in and said we need 100% uptime, and we are a failure as a company unless we reach that?

[Qwertious]

Is anyone here saying we need to reach literally 0% homelessness? Reducing current numbers by 99% would be amazing.

[IncreasePosts]

Well, people have used the phrase "end homelessness", which I take to mean no homeless.

[amanaplanacanal]

People have used the phrase "end poverty" for decades, and we still spend money on it even if we didn't get to 0%.