Well that's what you said:

"Always remember studies found it was cheaper for taxpayers to house the unhomed than it was to provide services for the unhoused population."

Meanwhile, I did NOT say that we need to imprison all of them, or that all homeless are derelicts. I think you know the population I'm talking about here. (Hint: it's not single moms fleeing DV or someone who just lost their job and suddenly can't pay rent.)

And since you claim I "made it up" about California...

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs

https://www.kabc.com/2022/02/26/the-waste-is-criminal-la-building-homeless-palaces-that-cost-800000-with-your-money/

>Always remember studies found it was cheaper for taxpayers to house the unhomed than it was to provide services for the unhoused population.

You think you can just unconditionally give a homeless junkie a house (which they will destroy) and they won't need any services? Get real.

It's a lot cheaper to offer them shelter than a home. Even a jail cell costs a fraction of a home, they get fed, and it removes them from society so we don't continue to get victimized by their bullshit. In California it's costing somewhere around $700K to $800K to give these derelicts a home. You really think that's a good use of our money?

Damn, not bad! I thought she was fugly in The Shining.