"housing first" initiatives end up saving governments money in the long run, because people in stable situations require fewer supports, are healthier physically & mentally, have the bandwidth for pastimes & participating in their communities, etc etc.

(if i didn't know any better, i might think having an unhoused population is an intentional policy choice to threaten people with & to keep capitalism going. because if people just started building & providing housing to one another for free, like they used to before planning permission & other red tape, our local communities might start to be too independent & self-sufficient to keep centi-billionaires quite as rich, oh no! 😱)

This is commonly discussed by local municipalities as an option. Usually the neighbors lose their shit and it becomes politically untenable.

My hometown actually set up something like this, with small shed-sized houses that had heating and AC, communal bathrooms, and staff on-site in case anyone needed a hand with something (including professionals trained in addiction). Folks who stayed there report that it was absolutely life changing and enabled them to finally get a job and move into a real apartment or buy a house, get married and have kids, the works.

Unfortunately, the apartment buildings next door are all owned by one asshole who, like all landlords, abhors the idea of free housing and has argued against the encampment since it started. A lot of the people who live there are pretty noisy about it, too. They say that homeless people from the encampment are harassing them, breaking their windows, stealing from their cars, etc - essentially, anytime anyone's an asshole to them, the asshole must have been from the encampment. Never mind that my hometown is known for having a high crime rate regardless...

So that's discouraging. But the fact of the matter is that your idea is plausible and there's tons of evidence to back it up!! And yeah, having a permanent, safe place to live is pretty damn life changing