Surely the answer is both. Certainly, in Seattle, there's been an ongoing rise in rents across the metro area, which has been pricing out lower-income residents.
That being said, however, it's pretty obvious to me that a substantial portion of the homeless are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs.
The existing homeless programs seem to do a fairly good job of helping the first category of homeless (i.e., basically well-adjusted people who have had financial problems) get back on their feet.
However, the "homeless NGO complex" in Seattle (and, from what I can tell, in San Francisco) refuses to admit that the second category of homeless even exists, and from what I can see, tries to use the same techniques for the first category with the second. And that's just not going to work.
Book Review: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities by Michael Shellenberger
Surely the answer is both. Certainly, in Seattle, there's been an ongoing rise in rents across the metro area, which has been pricing out lower-income residents.
That being said, however, it's pretty obvious to me that a substantial portion of the homeless are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs.
The existing homeless programs seem to do a fairly good job of helping the first category of homeless (i.e., basically well-adjusted people who have had financial problems) get back on their feet.
However, the "homeless NGO complex" in Seattle (and, from what I can tell, in San Francisco) refuses to admit that the second category of homeless even exists, and from what I can see, tries to use the same techniques for the first category with the second. And that's just not going to work.