In my last post, I wondered why the government doesn’t make an effort to fight homelessness at the root of the problem by offering more affordable housing, possibly incentivized through the use of tax breaks. I wasn’t aware that this actually *is* a solution that governments are currently trying to pursue. The reason is most likely because this solution has not been working well, and doesn’t show signs of getting better. DeBlasio’s plans for mandatory inclusionary zoning have come under some fire for being likely to cause more harm than good. It was proposed in the Jacobin article that more public housing would be beneficial, but it’s not difficult to see that, given the current state of many public houses, this solution would also not be ideal. I can’t help but wonder if the offering of more homes for the homeless is still too much of a “little-picture” kind of solution. Perhaps the problem of affordable housing has less to do with the actual price of houses and more with the ability of citizens to actually *pay* for those houses. Would it perhaps be easier to combat homelessness if we provided opportunities to gain jobs and income instead of just a cheap house to those in need?

(Side note – the Wall Street Journal article is not currently available without a subscription to the publication, which I don’t think many of us have.)