A) those links seem to suggest the 100k figure to be a large exaggeration.
And I supplied data with a more conservative estimate. Agreed.
B) where is the evidence that once housed offending ceases?
Strawman. The argument is reiterated below.
"I'm not against housing the homeless, quite the opposite."
Great!
"What I am opposed to is economically illiterate lefties dressing it up as some kind of money saving step towards an affordable and viable socialist utopia."
Which is another strawman; the argument is that it is cheaper to house them than leave them on the streets and that's what the references demonstrably show.
(, Fri 15 May 2015, 17:04, Reply)
I'm quite sure you don't know what it means. The data shows cost of law and order for criminal acts of homeless reduced. That does not mean that crime overall goes down, or that those former homeless cease engaging in criminal behaviour. It does show that less crime is committed by homeless people, unsurprisingly, because they are no longer homeless. This is a good thing, but let's not overstate the impact of crime by fiddling numbers, or the economics of it by similar methodology.
(, Fri 15 May 2015, 18:25, Reply)
have you read the references? your point is dealt with there.
(, Fri 15 May 2015, 21:02, Reply)
You think anyone with two brain cells takes Huff Post seriously? Fuck off twat.
(, Fri 15 May 2015, 23:31, Reply)