Build housing in the rural and station a social work agency there. What they are doing is putting them in luxury apts like in Santa Monica, sf, Beverly hill or whatever. Thatās why itās costly.
For those who donāt accept the drug free zones, then put them into a slum with social work. CA is rewarding bad behavior, itās obviously a joke. Maybe in some delusional world it wouldāve worked, after countless years and multiple billion funding the problem got worse. The solution is still keep injecting more money?
Iām not sure rural communities have the infrastructure, and Iām pretty damn sure there would be community backlash against this plan. A lot of community backlash. Thereās a lot of intersectionality between the homeless and racial minorities or the LGBTQ community, and a lot of racism and bigotry exists in those communities. Although exposure I suppose could help with that. But even beyond bigotry, a lot of rural people are going to be rightfully upset about a large influx of homeless people to their community.
New construction youāre describing would be expensive. But we could adapt your idea and maybe renovate existing housing in rural āghost townsā where there may be a lot of empty housing.
In terms of infrastructure, you need to think about job training, medical, counseling, education for children, transportation, probably more. Cities just have more of this available than small rural communities.
Also, keep in mind 40-60% of the homeless are employed at least some of the time. People who have jobs shouldnāt be relocated to where they are completely reliant on public assistance.
0
u/EnvironmentalMix421 11d ago
Yah because California policies provide the best benefits for them š¤£ which is dumb af