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.
Mr. Brown, sorry for the delayed reply. I suspect you are right. And if I recall Shellenberger talked about the homeless NGO complex, or something like it. Thanks for the comment; they are always welcomed here.
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.
Mr. Brown, sorry for the delayed reply. I suspect you are right. And if I recall Shellenberger talked about the homeless NGO complex, or something like it. Thanks for the comment; they are always welcomed here.