Words: 340
Whether government should provide homeless people with homes has become a very contentious issue, as it is conspicuous from the number of people who are sleeping rough in cities around the globe. As opinions diverge on the Issue, some claiming that government should shoulder the responsibility and provide them with homes to mitigate the problem, however, I tenaciously cleave to the notion that to love the problem of homelessness governments should better Invest In forestalling the Imminent Increase In the number of vagrant people.
It Is Incontrovertible that providing homeless people with accommodation would generate advantages and ultimately herald a decrease In the number of people with no fixed abode, and would pave the way for less crime infested society, as young people with no homes are more likely malleable get inculpated in the world of crime, and the decrease would result in a safer society as the homeless constitute a Seibel threat to the people, however, this solution is transient and would not be feasible.
As the nub of the matter lies within a permanent solution to the problem, I believe that providing derelict with accommodation only alleviates the problem and as it does not terminate the future emergence of homeless people, which presages that the problem will still be prevalent in the near future. Thus, to eradicate the problem government should better invest in prevention rather than spending exorbitant amounts of money on curing.
Furthermore, the government should root out the causes of the homelessness, such as unemployment as it is intrinsic to the problem of living rough To conclude, providing people with homes would engender considerable advantages such as the decrease in the numbers of homeless people and the number of crimes committed, as crime is homogeneously rife among the homeless, however as I mentioned above it would only be palliating the problem not curing it, so government should better channel the money towards the causes of the problem as It Is a more viable.