alt Hacker News(tangent) for those of us who had close experiences with addiction in our families, it's so obvious why "give them money" or "give them homes to live in" isn't a solution to homelesness. A close family member owned 3 properties and still was living in the streets by choice because of his addiction which evolved into a full blown paranoid schizophrenia. He almost lost it all but he was forcefully commited into a mental institution and rehab saved his life.
Replies
> "by choice because of"
Goodness, that doesn't look like a choice to me.
sorry for your situation but that description is inconsistent without medical insight
perhaps more importantly, ascribing legal treatment for a class of people ("homeless") based on this particular case is also unwise, at the least
100 years ago people like Rob Reiner's drug addict son would probably have been in an insane asylum.
So you claim to know for certain that it virtually never happens that someone winds up homeless for financial reasons, like their rent got raised or they lost their job and couldn't find one that paid enough for the prevailing rents.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how you determined this. Did you for instance survey homeless people in a number of US cities? Or perhaps you used some other method.
Just realize your personal experience isn't generalizable. Surveys I've seen report that about a third of homeless have drug problems, which means that the other two thirds may very well benefit from "give them homes to live in".