This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
There's Hysteresis to this by AquinasDomer
Had housing been affordable you'd have a much smaller and easily manageable homeless population. Now even if you fix the housing problem the chronically homeless that restrictive housing helped create won't just go away. You'll need social services and such.
Other examples of this are Houston which more than halved their homeless population in the last decade, and Tokyo which saw its homeless population drop when they deregulated housing construction.
I'd also point out places like Detroit, Memphis, Milwaukee with a lot of poor urban people don't have west coast/NYC/Vermont levels of homelessness despite a lot of concentrated poverty, drug use, etc. The difference is housing.