I tried to help a homeless friend who was an alcoholic, but landlords really don't tolerate urinating on the floor, breaking keys off in locks, and not paying bills.
One of the linked studies shows that it's ultimately cost-effective, though:
"participants had... median costs of $4066 per person per month... Median monthly costs decreased to $1492 and $958 after 6 and 12 months in housing, respectively" [1]
The implication is that there are risks (eventual damages) incurred by being a first-mover. Re: Anaheim's attempt to curb the homeless by the river. What's more, is that it is not a panacea nor does it eliminate drug use. The risk is an ongoing cost and current housing is not tooled to tolerate it. How is this best addressed?
I expect that housing will be bifurcated, much like it is in England. The Blocks (made of cinderblock and stone to minimize the inevitable fires) and what we currently think of as traditional wood-and-stucco housing.
"Curing" people with a problem like that is not as simple as putting a roof over their heads. The cat can take a pill, but the alcoholic needs a life redirection, and that takes social infrastructure. If you put yourself on the hook by providing said roof, their problems become yours. At that point, you need to ask yourself if you have the time, energy, patience, and most importantly, compassion.
Huh, almost as if the solution is collective rather than hyper-individualist action, and it requires the resources of a community to pay the upfront costs in order to see the long term payoff.
