I'm not sure what the cons are? If as the Utah govenor says it's cheaper to provide housing than the police/hospital/prison costs it kind of seems pretty con free.
In other parts of the country the housing would cost more, but the perhaps prison, hospitals and policing would cost more in those areas too.
It also doesn't take into account the extra money injected by someone returning to work because they've got a fixed house.
The article you point to rightly points out that the data is over hyped which is a shame. But the article then seems to use this to throw out everything that they've done in Utah.
The author appears to have some kind of fairly strong bias which I think he brings to light with this quote:
> Additional focus should be placed on transitioning people out of expensive supportive housing and into housing of their own or with family members when their well-being improves.
As far as I can see, if the maths stack up then just keep building houses.
In other parts of the country the housing would cost more, but the perhaps prison, hospitals and policing would cost more in those areas too.
It also doesn't take into account the extra money injected by someone returning to work because they've got a fixed house.
The article you point to rightly points out that the data is over hyped which is a shame. But the article then seems to use this to throw out everything that they've done in Utah.
The author appears to have some kind of fairly strong bias which I think he brings to light with this quote:
> Additional focus should be placed on transitioning people out of expensive supportive housing and into housing of their own or with family members when their well-being improves.
As far as I can see, if the maths stack up then just keep building houses.