Anonymous wrote:I agree that DC needs to do a lot better with coordinating and making efficient and effective use of its resources.

DC also needs to get serious about the harder decisions that need to be made, for example if there is a homeless untreated schizophrenic drug addict threatening and harrassing people on the streets and causing problems for business, he needs to be given an ultimatum of either being committed for treatment, voluntarily or involuntarily, or taking himself and his bullshit elsewhere and DC not allowing it to continue.

That said, I don't think Houston suffers from some of the other contributors to homeless that DC does. For one, DC is the recipient of tons of homeless who get shipped here, mostly from red states who cynically want to make it political, where sheriffs will round up any homeless they find and put them on a bus with a one way ticket to DC to make it "DC's problem" because they blame "Joe Brandon" or "liberal politics" or whatever for homelessness, ignoring the fact that DC government has absolutely nothing to do with a homelessness problem 4 states away. It's unfair to DC taxpayers.

Additionally, and along a similar vein, DC is also a magnet for homeless crazies, the schizophrenic and paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists, like maybe they think they have the whole alien reptoid illuminati conspiracy all figured out and they are going to come here to expose it all, or whatever else.

For those reasons, DC has an excess burden of homeless and mentally ill that its neighboring communities don't. That's a burden that should be shared and not be for DC to shoulder alone.

Additionally, costs are much higher in DC than in many other parts of the country - real estate costs for housing the homeless are higher, not to mention DC has limited space to begin with; labor costs are higher, and so on - it makes more sense to try and house and treat the homeless in places where it's more fiscally affordable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

We now know that homelessness is a housing problem. Houston is cheap. DC is not. That's why many desirable cities have homeless problems. Many homeless people work and still can't afford housing.

Fairfax definitely did some things that helped. Our government won't do it, like bringing ALL homeless services within one agency (actually Houston did do that).

I love DC, but folks keep reelecting Bowser. Why, I have no idea. No, I don't think it's because there is one party rule here.

This is flat wrong. Homelessness is drug use not housing. And Houston is not cheap. It is less expensive than NYC or DC but housing is more expensive than other Tx cities, and income is lower.

Comments like the above are why homelessness will never be met with a viable solution in DC

+1. Homelessness isn’t due to cost of housing. It’s mental illness and drug use.

Chronic homelessness is. And a lot of the homelessness in DC is due to substance abuse and/or mental illness.
And, you can't exactly house someone without dealing with those issues.
I think DC needs to rethink its strategies and get its entire approach re-organized.

It probably needs to start out with building capacity for treatment and then doing wellness checks and assessments on homeless people. If they do indeed suffer from untreated mental illness or substance abuse, DC law does in fact give the power to involuntarily commit people. Sure, give them a choice - but it will be of whether they want to stay in DC AND BE TREATED, or go somewhere else and remain untreated. I think some of the addicts and schizophrenics may then choose to leave, of their own accord. Fine, send them off with a hot shower, change of clothes, pack, sleeping bag, a bus ticket to wherever they want to go and $100 dollars and tell them they will go into treatment if they return.

I also think DC real estate costs and cost-of-living and labor are too high in DC. DC should purchase land somewhere that is more affordable and build a facility that has its own farm, where the homeless can be taught skills, growing crops, cooking, baking, taking care of each other and so on. Some of them already do that and know how to live on modest means. But it needs to be more robust. Those that can be transitioned to other skills can then be graduated out and placed in the job market, placed in apartments and so on.

Oh look, it's the "put homeless people in rural labor/re-education camps" poster again.

His solution is kind of a bridge too far, but the analysis of the problem isn’t. Mental illness and drug abuse is rampant within the homeless community. Simply giving them housing hasn’t proven adequate. Go ask San Francisco.

San Francisco has moderate dry weather. People come from other areas. Texas weather is unbearable ans Texas does not have good healthcare, education system, public transportation, etc. Texas is only good is you are a rich white person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

We now know that homelessness is a housing problem. Houston is cheap. DC is not. That's why many desirable cities have homeless problems. Many homeless people work and still can't afford housing.

Fairfax definitely did some things that helped. Our government won't do it, like bringing ALL homeless services within one agency (actually Houston did do that).

I love DC, but folks keep reelecting Bowser. Why, I have no idea. No, I don't think it's because there is one party rule here.

This is flat wrong. Homelessness is drug use not housing. And Houston is not cheap. It is less expensive than NYC or DC but housing is more expensive than other Tx cities, and income is lower.

Comments like the above are why homelessness will never be met with a viable solution in DC

+1. Homelessness isn’t due to cost of housing. It’s mental illness and drug use.

Chronic homelessness is. And a lot of the homelessness in DC is due to substance abuse and/or mental illness.
And, you can't exactly house someone without dealing with those issues.
I think DC needs to rethink its strategies and get its entire approach re-organized.

It probably needs to start out with building capacity for treatment and then doing wellness checks and assessments on homeless people. If they do indeed suffer from untreated mental illness or substance abuse, DC law does in fact give the power to involuntarily commit people. Sure, give them a choice - but it will be of whether they want to stay in DC AND BE TREATED, or go somewhere else and remain untreated. I think some of the addicts and schizophrenics may then choose to leave, of their own accord. Fine, send them off with a hot shower, change of clothes, pack, sleeping bag, a bus ticket to wherever they want to go and $100 dollars and tell them they will go into treatment if they return.

I also think DC real estate costs and cost-of-living and labor are too high in DC. DC should purchase land somewhere that is more affordable and build a facility that has its own farm, where the homeless can be taught skills, growing crops, cooking, baking, taking care of each other and so on. Some of them already do that and know how to live on modest means. But it needs to be more robust. Those that can be transitioned to other skills can then be graduated out and placed in the job market, placed in apartments and so on.

Oh look, it's the "put homeless people in rural labor/re-education camps" poster again.

His solution is kind of a bridge too far, but the analysis of the problem isn’t. Mental illness and drug abuse is rampant within the homeless community. Simply giving them housing hasn’t proven adequate. Go ask San Francisco.

San Francisco has moderate dry weather. People come from other areas. Texas weather is unbearable ans Texas does not have good healthcare, education system, public transportation, etc. Texas is only good is you are a rich white person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

We now know that homelessness is a housing problem. Houston is cheap. DC is not. That's why many desirable cities have homeless problems. Many homeless people work and still can't afford housing.

Fairfax definitely did some things that helped. Our government won't do it, like bringing ALL homeless services within one agency (actually Houston did do that).

I love DC, but folks keep reelecting Bowser. Why, I have no idea. No, I don't think it's because there is one party rule here.

This is flat wrong. Homelessness is drug use not housing. And Houston is not cheap. It is less expensive than NYC or DC but housing is more expensive than other Tx cities, and income is lower.

Comments like the above are why homelessness will never be met with a viable solution in DC

+1. Homelessness isn’t due to cost of housing. It’s mental illness and drug use.

Chronic homelessness is. And a lot of the homelessness in DC is due to substance abuse and/or mental illness.
And, you can't exactly house someone without dealing with those issues.
I think DC needs to rethink its strategies and get its entire approach re-organized.

It probably needs to start out with building capacity for treatment and then doing wellness checks and assessments on homeless people. If they do indeed suffer from untreated mental illness or substance abuse, DC law does in fact give the power to involuntarily commit people. Sure, give them a choice - but it will be of whether they want to stay in DC AND BE TREATED, or go somewhere else and remain untreated. I think some of the addicts and schizophrenics may then choose to leave, of their own accord. Fine, send them off with a hot shower, change of clothes, pack, sleeping bag, a bus ticket to wherever they want to go and $100 dollars and tell them they will go into treatment if they return.

I also think DC real estate costs and cost-of-living and labor are too high in DC. DC should purchase land somewhere that is more affordable and build a facility that has its own farm, where the homeless can be taught skills, growing crops, cooking, baking, taking care of each other and so on. Some of them already do that and know how to live on modest means. But it needs to be more robust. Those that can be transitioned to other skills can then be graduated out and placed in the job market, placed in apartments and so on.

Oh look, it's the "put homeless people in rural labor/re-education camps" poster again.

His solution is kind of a bridge too far, but the analysis of the problem isn’t. Mental illness and drug abuse is rampant within the homeless community. Simply giving them housing hasn’t proven adequate. Go ask San Francisco.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

We now know that homelessness is a housing problem. Houston is cheap. DC is not. That's why many desirable cities have homeless problems. Many homeless people work and still can't afford housing.

Fairfax definitely did some things that helped. Our government won't do it, like bringing ALL homeless services within one agency (actually Houston did do that).

I love DC, but folks keep reelecting Bowser. Why, I have no idea. No, I don't think it's because there is one party rule here.

This is flat wrong. Homelessness is drug use not housing. And Houston is not cheap. It is less expensive than NYC or DC but housing is more expensive than other Tx cities, and income is lower.

Comments like the above are why homelessness will never be met with a viable solution in DC

+1. Homelessness isn’t due to cost of housing. It’s mental illness and drug use.

Chronic homelessness is. And a lot of the homelessness in DC is due to substance abuse and/or mental illness.
And, you can't exactly house someone without dealing with those issues.
I think DC needs to rethink its strategies and get its entire approach re-organized.

It probably needs to start out with building capacity for treatment and then doing wellness checks and assessments on homeless people. If they do indeed suffer from untreated mental illness or substance abuse, DC law does in fact give the power to involuntarily commit people. Sure, give them a choice - but it will be of whether they want to stay in DC AND BE TREATED, or go somewhere else and remain untreated. I think some of the addicts and schizophrenics may then choose to leave, of their own accord. Fine, send them off with a hot shower, change of clothes, pack, sleeping bag, a bus ticket to wherever they want to go and $100 dollars and tell them they will go into treatment if they return.

I also think DC real estate costs and cost-of-living and labor are too high in DC. DC should purchase land somewhere that is more affordable and build a facility that has its own farm, where the homeless can be taught skills, growing crops, cooking, baking, taking care of each other and so on. Some of them already do that and know how to live on modest means. But it needs to be more robust. Those that can be transitioned to other skills can then be graduated out and placed in the job market, placed in apartments and so on.

Oh look, it's the "put homeless people in rural labor/re-education camps" poster again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

We now know that homelessness is a housing problem. Houston is cheap. DC is not. That's why many desirable cities have homeless problems. Many homeless people work and still can't afford housing.

Fairfax definitely did some things that helped. Our government won't do it, like bringing ALL homeless services within one agency (actually Houston did do that).

I love DC, but folks keep reelecting Bowser. Why, I have no idea. No, I don't think it's because there is one party rule here.

This is flat wrong. Homelessness is drug use not housing. And Houston is not cheap. It is less expensive than NYC or DC but housing is more expensive than other Tx cities, and income is lower.

Comments like the above are why homelessness will never be met with a viable solution in DC

+1. Homelessness isn’t due to cost of housing. It’s mental illness and drug use.

Chronic homelessness is. And a lot of the homelessness in DC is due to substance abuse and/or mental illness.
And, you can't exactly house someone without dealing with those issues.
I think DC needs to rethink its strategies and get its entire approach re-organized.

It probably needs to start out with building capacity for treatment and then doing wellness checks and assessments on homeless people. If they do indeed suffer from untreated mental illness or substance abuse, DC law does in fact give the power to involuntarily commit people. Sure, give them a choice - but it will be of whether they want to stay in DC AND BE TREATED, or go somewhere else and remain untreated. I think some of the addicts and schizophrenics may then choose to leave, of their own accord. Fine, send them off with a hot shower, change of clothes, pack, sleeping bag, a bus ticket to wherever they want to go and $100 dollars and tell them they will go into treatment if they return.

I also think DC real estate costs and cost-of-living and labor are too high in DC. DC should purchase land somewhere that is more affordable and build a facility that has its own farm, where the homeless can be taught skills, growing crops, cooking, baking, taking care of each other and so on. Some of them already do that and know how to live on modest means. But it needs to be more robust. Those that can be transitioned to other skills can then be graduated out and placed in the job market, placed in apartments and so on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

We now know that homelessness is a housing problem. Houston is cheap. DC is not. That's why many desirable cities have homeless problems. Many homeless people work and still can't afford housing.

Fairfax definitely did some things that helped. Our government won't do it, like bringing ALL homeless services within one agency (actually Houston did do that).

I love DC, but folks keep reelecting Bowser. Why, I have no idea. No, I don't think it's because there is one party rule here.

This is flat wrong. Homelessness is drug use not housing. And Houston is not cheap. It is less expensive than NYC or DC but housing is more expensive than other Tx cities, and income is lower.

Comments like the above are why homelessness will never be met with a viable solution in DC

+1. Homelessness isn’t due to cost of housing. It’s mental illness and drug use.

Chronic homelessness is. And a lot of the homelessness in DC is due to substance abuse and/or mental illness.
And, you can't exactly house someone without dealing with those issues.
I think DC needs to rethink its strategies and get its entire approach re-organized.

It probably needs to start out with building capacity for treatment and then doing wellness checks and assessments on homeless people. If they do indeed suffer from untreated mental illness or substance abuse, DC law does in fact give the power to involuntarily commit people. Sure, give them a choice - but it will be of whether they want to stay in DC AND BE TREATED, or go somewhere else and remain untreated. I think some of the addicts and schizophrenics may then choose to leave, of their own accord. Fine, send them off with a hot shower, change of clothes, pack, sleeping bag, a bus ticket to wherever they want to go and $100 dollars and tell them they will go into treatment if they return.

I also think DC real estate costs and cost-of-living and labor are too high in DC. DC should purchase land somewhere that is more affordable and build a facility that has its own farm, where the homeless can be taught skills, growing crops, cooking, baking, taking care of each other and so on. Some of them already do that and know how to live on modest means. But it needs to be more robust. Those that can be transitioned to other skills can then be graduated out and placed in the job market, placed in apartments and so on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

We now know that homelessness is a housing problem. Houston is cheap. DC is not. That's why many desirable cities have homeless problems. Many homeless people work and still can't afford housing.

Fairfax definitely did some things that helped. Our government won't do it, like bringing ALL homeless services within one agency (actually Houston did do that).

I love DC, but folks keep reelecting Bowser. Why, I have no idea. No, I don't think it's because there is one party rule here.

This is flat wrong. Homelessness is drug use not housing. And Houston is not cheap. It is less expensive than NYC or DC but housing is more expensive than other Tx cities, and income is lower.

Comments like the above are why homelessness will never be met with a viable solution in DC

+1. Homelessness isn’t due to cost of housing. It’s mental illness and drug use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Houston only has to coordinate with Harris County.

DC cannot look to Houston because it has to coordinate with PG, MoCo, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. There are too many jurisdictions and they all have perverse incentives - if one (usually DC) tries to take a more generous or proactive approach, then the others are incentivized to "crack down" by razing encampments or rousting people where they sleep and watching as the homeless people in their area "self-deport" to DC where things are not as draconian. This creates a self-replenishing population of homeless people and a black hole for services, money, and efforts. You cannot cut homelessness by 2/3 in this scenario because the vacuum will fill itself.

And all of that is before you add in red states actively shipping people with no addresses to DC on planes.

How is that relevant? You're confusing two very different topics. Most of the undocumented immigrants sent to NE by Abbott were from the border - not Houston. They were also not part of the homeless encampments. Houston is run by a D and has been for a very long time. Like most TX cities, Houston has a D mayor and city council. Abbott and the rest of the Rs in ATX don't have much to do with the city's homeless issue.

Plus, the above is just flat wrong. DC can deal with the homeless in the district without having to liaise with FFX Co. DC is just too inept to do it.

We now know that homelessness is a housing problem. Houston is cheap. DC is not. That's why many desirable cities have homeless problems. Many homeless people work and still can't afford housing.

Fairfax definitely did some things that helped. Our government won't do it, like bringing ALL homeless services within one agency (actually Houston did do that).

I love DC, but folks keep reelecting Bowser. Why, I have no idea. No, I don't think it's because there is one party rule here.

This is flat wrong. Homelessness is drug use not housing. And Houston is not cheap. It is less expensive than NYC or DC but housing is more expensive than other Tx cities, and income is lower.

Comments like the above are why homelessness will never be met with a viable solution in DC