> The government simply gives the homeless person a house, no questions asked, no strings attached. You want a house, you get one.
Your references don't support this.
[0]
> The idea of Housing First is that housing comes first, services later. Clients do have to pay some rent — either 30 percent of income or up to $50 a month, whichever is greater.
They also review every case and only provide housing to those that aren't dealing drugs, and aren't violent.
[1]
> Tenants pay rent and are entitled to receive housing benefits. Depending on their income, they may contribute to the cost of the services. The rest is covered by the municipalities. They provide the support themselves or buy support from other service providers, mainly from the NGOs.
[2] is in reference to Chicago. I don't think that city is a success story.
I never said there shouldn't be any social services. I don't think 100% socialism is the answer, though.
> It's cheaper.
You are comparing San Francisco to other areas which run these programs, and holding it up as if it is the only alternative to socialism. This is hardly true, isn't it?
> It's giving housing first.
Only to those that play by the rules. I think that is really the best solution out there. A compromise between self responsibility and care.
> Finally, Numbers and Chicago don't care what you think.
Your references don't support this.
[0]
> The idea of Housing First is that housing comes first, services later. Clients do have to pay some rent — either 30 percent of income or up to $50 a month, whichever is greater.
They also review every case and only provide housing to those that aren't dealing drugs, and aren't violent.
[1]
> Tenants pay rent and are entitled to receive housing benefits. Depending on their income, they may contribute to the cost of the services. The rest is covered by the municipalities. They provide the support themselves or buy support from other service providers, mainly from the NGOs.
[2] is in reference to Chicago. I don't think that city is a success story.