There is a reason cities continue to pay the huge tab associated with poverty and homelessness rather than pay for affordable housing, and it’s largely ideological. Truly free markets would solve it. Affordable housing would exert a strong downward pull on artificially inflated real estate markets, anchoring them to some semblance of reality. This truly would be disruptive! And what would become of the class of social workers, policy specialists, academics, lobbyists and other workers who labor endlessly and without result to solve this seemingly intractable problem, if it was actually solved? And if people could live simply and affordably the hunger game to enter the middle class would lose its urgent appeal. Any study of outlier and homeless communities reveals that they could easily self organize and be self sufficient given half a chance. Most people working to solve homelessness are laboring to ensure this half a chance never ever appears, though many probably believe they are doing a geat good. some are more interested in their own legacy/advantage. One type isnt necessarily superior to the other. In fact the first type may unwittingly do more harm and be without the capacity for self reflection/correction. Seems like this kid was scapegoated in classical form. He was an outsider in the first place, a hustler who sold phones. Says a lot about the essentially primitive nature of the social organization he fell afoul of, underneath its progressive, futuristic gloss, the culture hasn’t really evolved too far.