So yeah. Housing the homeless is an effective solution. There are more empty homes than homeless in the US at least. And you can subsidize or build new places for this purpose, especially if they are transitory for the majority. And it'll still be cheaper than dealing with all the knock-on effects of homelessness: litter, crime, health issues, etc.
But how will investors in the housing market recover from the loss in property value?
Won't somebody please think of the 
Which is why this is always a liability and who the fuck would willingly work on liabilities in a capitalist society?
Public services in capitalist and communist societies are often hindered by inefficiency and corruption, causing issues with access to public housing. Public services are often influenced by political agendas and it can be difficult for disadvantaged groups to access. (https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2022/03/DHS-.pdf, for New York Budget) (https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/07/26/homeless-shelters-are-overflowing-and-most-likely-in-poor-areas-despite-fair-share-promises/)
I think the problem has more to do with the fact that humans are common to fall into nepotism and greed. This is not a problem that is siloed to either economic solution. (https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin)
This post was revised using the help of a locally run instance llama2-uncensored from https://ollama.ai/.
IMO, a big issue is that in many capitalist countries, fixing homelessness by simply providing homes for those without, even very modest, small homes, isn't going to solve the problems that made those people homeless to begin with.
To my best understanding of all available data, nobody chooses to be homeless. It's not like they go out one day, buy a tent, pick a spot on the sidewalk and say "I'm going to live here now". It's usually a combination of bad choices, and circumstances that caused them to become homeless to begin with and a mix of abandonment, lack of caring, drug addiction, and mental issues, that keeps them there.
Bringing homes to the homeless in capitalist countries just converts the homeless into people who live in subsidised slums, with all the issues that come with that.
The homeless also need a variety of other civil services, like drug rehab/addition counselling, mental health services, psychiatric help, medical services, and social supports, like social groups, to help build community among the people who are struggling.
All while the homeless are incapable of paying the bill. Given the conservative mindset, they're "at the bottom" for a reason. They didn't try hard enough, or work enough, or whatever, which landed them squarely at the absolute bottom of the capitalist ladder. To help them up, is asking everyone above them to stop, or lean down or go down to pick them up, sacrificing their hard earned "position" on that ladder so that people they don't know can have a chance.
In the same way, it increases the competition for where you are and want to go on the capitalist ladder, making it more difficult for them to climb up to "where they belong".
I don't subscribe to that thought process, but understanding it is important to know what we're up against if we want to impose changes that make a real difference to those that are homeless and struggling. I'm certainly in favor of it.
Aren't those the abandoned buildings that they built but didn't let anyone live in?
Apropos of nothing: posting 
memes to !memes@lemmy.ml is risky business,
because 
might choose to engage with the meme in earnest.
😄