Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!us1.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=40TQMmca=g9[XeeEkh:@g0U5[F2hIijD?7J470dMQQ7;AUDUcSnb?@92M\=I?U;kW3PN]4=KWcMQ4iWNDKWg;317EP?S5IYaD:=n_i[Z4@N@I6
X-Complaints-To: support@frugalusenet.com
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Trump's latest lunacy
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
References: <vrh8vj$3e213$1@dont-email.me> <vrq8i5$3jj5h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrrue2$14m8d$1@dont-email.me> <jf73ujl736svq8led49v2i6isrjn3mib38@4ax.com>
 <67e2c231$15$5281$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <vruhqn$3jbt5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: bitrex <user@example.net>
In-Reply-To: <vruhqn$3jbt5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <67e2d5f0$0$5280$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1742919153 reader.netnews.com 5280 127.0.0.1:59729
Bytes: 3570

On 3/25/2025 11:24 AM, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/25/2025 7:48 AM, bitrex wrote:
>> So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless 
>> anymore, 
> 
> No.  There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of
> support that you provide.

Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.

> Unless you resort to "institutionalizing" people "for their own good".

Many of he homeless we're discussing are drug-addicted, and lots of 
Americans seem to want that for the seriously drug addicted. They seem 
to believe that drug addicts who aren't "trying to get better" need to 
be forced to.

They seem to be under the misapprehension that recovery from serious 
drug addiction is a matter of like, finding the right therapist vs. 
fighting one of the most complex and poorly understood conditions in 
modern medicine, with relapse rates worse than the worst cancers even 
with the best care money can buy.

Unfortunately the outcome of many severe disease processes without 
reliable cures is death. But the ones who are destined to recover have a 
better shot at it with stable housing.

But yes, institutionalization and forced treatment with non-evidence 
based medicine is doomed to fail and the amount of money that can be 
wasted there for little result (and taxpayer outrage at it) far exceeds 
the little result that could be obtained by cheaper means.

> Housing needs to be *affordable* and sited in locations that folks
> will be comfortable living (and MAKING a living).  No one wants to
> "invest" in places where the only folks who will want to habitate
> can't afford to provide sufficient profit for the investor -- esp
> if there are other places where they can make a bigger, quicker buck!

There's a trickle-down theory of housing that if you just build new 
market-rate the prices on older stock will come down, there's a certain 
logic to it but proponents sometimes use Tokyo Japan as an example of a 
city that did it "right."

Japan is a terrible example of doing something "right" they had the 
better part of two decades of economic stagnation and a whole lost 
generation to help keep their housing costs low, it wasn't just urban 
policy.

Meanwhile the crisis is likely to only get more pressing in the US as 
housing and particularly rental inventory remains low, and use of AI 
tools to screen renters is bringing the same "fairness" to the rental 
market as resume panopticons brought to the IT hiring business.