A very interesting point brought up by the New Yorker article, “Hidden City,” was the repeated assertion that it costs more to find temporary housing for the homeless through a flawed system than it would cost to directly pay the homeless individual. As mentioned by one lady in an interview, welfare pays, “three thousand four hundred and forty-four dollars! Every month! Give me nine hundred dollars of that every month and I’ll find me and my kids an apartment, I promise you” (Frazier). While I agree that often the system for housing the homeless is more expensive (in the long run) than offering affordable housing and always more expensive than giving dividends with which to pay for housing, there is an overlooked problem of where that money may go. For instance, if there is somebody who is homeless because of a chemical addiction or alcoholism, the money he or she receives will not necessarily go towards finding affordable housing. However, if there is found a way around this issue – perhaps through a screening and medical examination – the idea of giving money straight to the individual and cutting out the middlemen of PATH and other services is one worth pursuing. What ways, if any, offer a practical possible solution in this vein?