Its edited/manipulated in some way. The E's are all the same, even the bump on the bottom part is there for all of them.

Might be photoshop moreso than ai

Its slop, if you want to make a political point you shouldn't need to steal (that post is AI generated)

And anyone who says they would be fine housing the homeless in their hood is a liar or has no experience with homeless people.

• On my street is a halfway house for recently released prisoners

• Next street over is a bunch of housing for formerly homeless

• In a few years, my entire street will be demolished to build new mixed-use housing, including some units set aside for formerly homeless, veterans, and teachers (this was prominently noted on the rental lease agreement and we know it's coming eventually).

I'm fine with it. It's a peaceful street. There are kids and families and people walking their dogs and old men fishing at the ass-crack of dawn. The people who are allowed to live there are vetted and have case managers and are given job training and psychological and medical support. I'm sure it's expensive as all fuck to the government/nonprofits involved to run it that way, and it only serves a relatively small number of people, but it works very well from everything I've seen.

You don't want to see them because you want them to be housed, or you want them to be forcibly moved so they're unhoused out of sight?

The government should be doing more for the housing crisis, but a first step for that is getting people aware of the issue and on board with solutions.

Ending homelessness requires a granular, personal approach. And that shit is EXPENSIVE.

But generally less expensive than letting the problem fester. Police, medics, sanitation, and so on is expensive as hell.

You're just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It's not complicated at all.

Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.

The cousin from a rich family "choosing" to be homeless over living with family is likely "choosing" that option because he doesn't want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It's likely the "choice" involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn't have decent options.

You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can't do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don't comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.

I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.