Read this article the other day.  It seems interesting, although it's a short article that doesn't have too much detail surrounding this policy idea.

 

 

 

Targeting the toughest customers of all

Here's how hard-headed business practices can help the world's wealthiest nation deal with the hard-core homeless.

By Cait Murphy, FORTUNE assistant managing editor

March 31, 2006: 7:38 AM EST

 

EDIT:  Article removed -  no link

Saw an article in the New Yorker awhile back discussing this same basic approach

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060213fa_fact

It really takes a change in perspective to grasp it, tho.

your probably not going to end homelessness 100%, but this just seems logical... What is so controversial or novel about this?

 

^My guess is that what makes it controversial is that the initial, easily-measurable cost of putting a homeless person in their own apartment looks a whole lot more expensive than putting them in a regular shelter (even more so if the city relies on other agencies to fund and run the shelter).  So voters start screaming about the wasteful city spending $s on putting up homeless folks (especially after the inevitable story about the homeless person put up in a really nice apartment comes out, regardless of why that might have made sense).  Even after the other costs come down, it still looks expensive to the average voter since it's hard to trace the decline in other costs to the reduction in homelessness.

 

Another controversial element could be the moral hazard problem.  I.e. I'm barely scraping by paying my rent, but if I just went homeless I could get a free place.  Could probably mitigate it with rules about who qualifies, but they could be difficult to implement/enforce.