zlacker

>>NaOH+(OP)
Viewed from 10,000ft it could even be cheaper in the long term, as an overall outcome. Personal attention, guidance through the system, vs constant background EMT interventions, more costly health outcomes, Policing and ultimately incarceration risks.

I don't like reductive economics logic over what is a humane response, but I do like that it may not only be nicer, but actually financially sensible.

>>ggm+Z8
In that case, why not move all the homeless from a park in a metropolis to a park in a cheaper/remote area? Then you can actually employ cheaper custodians in those areas to look after these homeless.

>>galima+4b
Then they'll have much further distances to commute on foot to their jobs.

>>Ogsyed+nd
If they could have a job they wouldn't be homeless.

>>WillPo+To
My understanding is that there are plenty of homeless folks with jobs.

>>amanap+Vs
Identifying and assisting these people first would seem to be the thing to do.

But reducing those homeless to 0% would likely not move the needle at all on the “problematic homeless” - the type everyone complains about.

Nobody cares about Steve Wallis sleeping in a bush.