I love that, I truly do. Giving people a chance instead of trying to get rid of them. But what about those on the verge of homelessness? I work my ass off 5 to 6 days a week year round and I can barely afford a studio apartment. And I make like $3,000+ a month. If I lost one of my jobs and couldn’t find another I’d be homeless in just a couple months. I like this as a step forward but we need to solve the issue of rent. I’d be able to put a down payment on a house within a couple years if I didn’t sink 75% of my income towards rent. I’ve often thought of just living out of my car for a few years just to do so

It only worked every time it had been tried. But that’s of course no reason to make this a general policy. That would be common sense, we don’t do that here!

First thing I asked myself from this headline was “what about the people in the control group” and sure enough, there’s no significant difference according to the note at the start of the article.

This is neat and all but let’s take a moment to consider all that this is doing is subsidizing landlords who are charging too much. If Denver were to impose a rent cap or punish gouging - housing would be more affordable for the impoverished and everyone else. More money to spend means a better local economy. Subsidizing just emboldens the landlords to continue to raise rent and pull more money out of the economy.

Get used to sharing ya stuff, then comrad.