As someone with extended family that has been - still is? no longer have contact with them due to drug use and other issues - homeless, I feel compelled to chime in here.
Someone above stated someone else 'just doesn't like unhoused people,' and I must say - neither do I.
Why? Regardless of the circumstances that brought them to that situation, the same problems tend to follow them.
In San Diego local government has pushed homeless out of the downtown area into the surrounding suburbs; given the abundance of unbuildable open space, unattended campfires are a real concern.
Even those unaffected by drugs or mental illness can still be problematic; I would probably care less if you slept in your car in my neighborhood - or anywhere for that matter - if you didn't throw your trash out the window on to the curb, or used the bushes as your personal toilet.
Our country could solve the homeless problem, but - to paraphrase Colonel Kurtz - we lack the will.
The consensus seems that the homeless could be broken down into a few groups: those with mental health issues, those with drug issues, those with both, and those that are legitimately down on their luck (homeless, but employed) and want assistance - and are willing to put in the effort.
If you're homeless with mental health issues (with/without drugs), living on the street doesn't help anyone; these people need to be domiciled somewhere where their health needs to can be met. If they need long-term, continuous care I'm all for tax dollars paying for it - but it needs to be productive. Do I think a potentially dangerous homeless schizophrenic should be housed against their will? Absolutely. If you do not, I'm sure we'd all like to hear your rational.
If you're homeless with drug issues, living in the streets doesn't help anyone; whether or not it directly leads to mental health issues I'll let others debate, but hopefully we can agree that a hard-core heroine/meth user isn't someone any of us would like camped out on the sidewalk in front of our home - and if you don't have an issue with that, I'd very much like to hear your rational (and ask if you have one currently?). These people need to be domiciled as well. If you're homeless, jobless, and a steady drug user I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that maybe you're also involved with criminal activity - which, again, doesn't benefit anyone and is something I don't think any of want in our neighborhood. Do I think a homeless meth addict should be housed against their will? Absolutely.
If you're homeless without these issues - regardless of whether you have employment - you should be given an opportunity to improve your situation, as it not only benefits you but also society. That said, beggars can't be choosers - and, in my opinion, if you're making use of tax funds to improve your station, there may be some stings attached. And while these folks may not be a danger, it benefit everyone to ensure they're domiciled (I don't think anyone wants to sleep in a Civic, and I'm tired of finding trash on the curb).
This country has an abundance of open land, though - unfortunately - it may not be near the coast or have the best weather. A development consisting of dormitories, medical services, educational services, entertainment (though probably no bars/clubs), etc. could be established. Those with mental health issues would have a safe, contained place in which to get better - access to doctors and medication, and someone to ensure they adhere to treatment. Those with drug issues would have a similar place in which to get clean. The 'working homeless' - or whatever term you like - could have a permanent, safe place in which to get back on their feet. Employment within the development - for those without drug/health issues, but no job - could be had (maintenance or landscape services, administration, perhaps working in the dorm cafeteria) - with the goal of eventually moving to permanent housing in a conventional neighborhood. Those with drug issues, once clean, could be employed in similar fashion - also with the goal of permanent housing/employment on the outside. Those with mental health issues, once better, could embark on a similar journey.
Let's be honest, no one wants a filthy tweaker taking a shit on the curb or leaving needles in the school playground; likewise, I'm sure we're in agreement that these people need help. If you're unable to be a productive, contributing, and SAFE member of society, perhaps society isn't the place for you at this time. What is outlined above could serve as a roadmap to a better life for some, and a significant improvement for many others.
I don't have a problem with helping people in need, but there needs to be results; I've long stated I have no problem with tax funds going to EBT as long as it cannot be used for soda/junk food... I don't want to pay for crap food if it means I'll be paying - through medicare/etc. - for your related health issues later on.
