So what are you advocating for? A theoretical future in which more homes are built correct? This takes time which implies the following: tonight a person who is homeless remains homeless and the landlord class who is currently raking it has their investment portfolio protected. If anything they likely make tons of money on developing the additional housing you describe.
Versus the state, today, acting and properly utilizing the housing supply that exists and housing people, today? Again you can misrepresent this by saying “there will be transportation problems” (there won’t, unless you protect the landlord class), or you can misrepresent this by saying “you’ll create ‘homeless camps’ in rural Kentucky with food deserts and no support” (you won’t, unless you protect the landlord class).
This is why i say you are defending wealthy elites, this is why i say you are defending not housing someone. I am not saying that your positions are incorrect, building more housing is necessary, changing zoning laws to be less car dependent and to change the structure of american suburbia is necessary, yes, agreed. Food deserts are a problem, access to services is a problem. But these are long term issues with long term solutions.
They can be coupled with a more drastic and forceful short term mediation that admittedly will not fix the problem entirely - temporary homelessness will always exist in some form as long as people kick each other out - and that will help the person that is living in a tent or their car or just sleeping in a fucking alley because the shelter is over capacity right now. And then the shelter may not be so constantly stressed of resources, can maybe even afford to stay open longer, and the person temporarily homeless will actually have a place to go.
Okay well overly attach yourself to an obviously hyperbolic statement that wasn’t even directed at you and get offended, I guess.
Or don’t since your response to being challenged is to apparently disengage.