Throwing money and houses at the problem has failed many, many times before. “just put a bunch of houses where social services are” is profoundly unrealistic. are there any areas that aren’t already developed heavily that would even qualify? social services are already criminally underfunded.
Even if you could do this for your extremely underestimated price tag, getting the “chronically” homeless (the people on the street we typically imagine as the homeless) to maintain a property without being a nuisance to neighbors and actually use the social services would require an entirely new social service of its own, with legions case workers being assigned to people, etc.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t build more cheap housing near social services, but I think statements like this profoundly underestimate and trivialize a problem that goes very deep - namely, the complete lack of societal safety nets and access to quality healthcare, all of which is exacerbated by a lack of housing.
Even if you could do this for your extremely underestimated price tag, getting the “chronically” homeless (the people on the street we typically imagine as the homeless) to maintain a property without being a nuisance to neighbors and actually use the social services would require an entirely new social service of its own, with legions case workers being assigned to people, etc.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t build more cheap housing near social services, but I think statements like this profoundly underestimate and trivialize a problem that goes very deep - namely, the complete lack of societal safety nets and access to quality healthcare, all of which is exacerbated by a lack of housing.