A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) edits by Grok and Gemini
Teaser
Today’s discussion begins with Washington, D.C.’s ongoing homelessness crisis and recent federal sweeps in the capital. From there, we explore an unconventional idea — moving part of the homeless population from large cities into smaller, rural communities, supported by federal and state funding. We examine how this might work, the social and economic ripple effects, and whether there are global examples that could guide such a shift.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Beth, yesterday we talked about crime in D.C., but as part of the public safety emergency, the National Guard has been deployed to assist with a public safety emergency that includes addressing the homeless issue. In March 2025, the President signed an executive order titled “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful” directing the National Park Service and Department of the Interior to rapidly dismantle homeless encampments on federal land in D.C. — and the National Park Service reports that 66 encampments have been cleared between March and the end of July 2025, sometimes with less than a day’s notice.
We’re hearing that many of our largest cities are struggling with homelessness, and this isn’t a party issue — it’s a national one. The homeless often stay in big cities because they offer better survival opportunities: more restaurants with excess unused food, easier access to health services, grocery stores with nearly expired food, and better communication networks within the homeless community.
If that’s true, doesn’t removing the homeless from one city simply move them to another? Rural America can’t support a large homeless population — a town of 5,000 might only be able to support two homeless people, and local law enforcement can easily “move them along” in such small numbers. So how does removing them from the capital do anything other than hide the problem?
Beth’s Answer
You’re asking the question that cuts through the political packaging — whether the D.C. sweeps are about public safety or about making a problem less visible in high-profile areas.
1. The Reality of D.C.’s Sweeps
Since the March 28, 2025 executive order “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful”, the National Park Service and Interior Department have dismantled 66 encampments on federal land. Under D.C.’s own policy, residents should get 14 days’ notice, but under the federal order, some have received only a day’s warning. The recent deployment of up to 1,000 National Guard troops as part of a public safety emergency adds another layer to the enforcement efforts, despite the mayor citing a drop in violent crime. The 2025 Point-In-Time (PIT) Count showed a 9% decrease in homelessness in D.C. from the previous year — 5,138 people compared to 5,616 in 2024 — though the number of unsheltered individuals is higher than in 2020.
2. Displacement, Not Resolution
Your point is spot on: moving people from one city doesn’t make them vanish; it shifts the problem elsewhere. People experiencing homelessness will gravitate toward areas where survival is possible. In practice, the D.C. sweeps likely send people toward other major metro areas, especially those connected by bus or rail. Without coordinated housing and support services, it becomes a “musical chairs” problem between cities.
3. Rural America’s Limits
Rural towns typically lack shelters, food programs, and public health resources to manage even a small homeless population. Even if federal authorities tried to disperse people into rural areas, the lack of support would force many back toward cities.
4. Policy Optics vs. Structural Change
Sweeps create a visible “before and after” that leaders can point to as evidence of action. But without housing programs, addiction treatment, and mental health infrastructure, the gains are cosmetic. In the case of D.C., the optics are amplified by the city’s symbolic role as the nation’s capital — the federal government is highly motivated to keep it looking orderly for political and international audiences.
5. A National Challenge
Homelessness has drivers that transcend local borders: housing affordability, wage stagnation, mental health care gaps, and addiction. Unless the federal government coordinates with states and cities on a unified housing and support framework, the problem will keep migrating rather than shrinking.
Miles’ Question
Beth, homelessness has existed throughout history, and we need a solution that provides housing. But in reality, to provide housing you have to have rules — and once you have rules, you start taking away freedoms.
For example, if housing is provided but alcohol isn’t allowed, people with alcohol problems might refuse to live there. That means we’d need a program to address alcoholism. Then we’d have to address drug addiction. Then there are people with mental health issues who don’t want to live with others. On top of that, we have to guard against corruption from people taking advantage of the money flowing into a new system.
So how do you create a program that deals with all of these complexities — addiction, mental illness, personal freedom, and corruption — while still solving the homeless problem?
Beth’s Answer
You’re putting your finger on why homelessness is so hard to solve: it’s not one problem, but an overlapping set of problems that interact in messy ways. Housing is only the visible starting point — the deeper issues are behavioral, medical, social, and even political.
1. Housing First vs. Housing With Rules
The “Housing First” model, used successfully in places like Finland and Utah (before funding cuts), prioritizes getting people into stable housing without preconditions. Rules are minimal at first, because the goal is to stabilize someone’s life before addressing deeper challenges like addiction or unemployment. The drawback is that some residents continue harmful behaviors, which can affect neighbors and staff.
The alternative — “Housing with Rules” — tries to ensure safety and order but risks excluding the very people most in need. As you noted, strict bans on alcohol or drugs can lead some to choose the streets over a shelter bed.
2. Layered Support Systems
To manage the complexities, you need an integrated approach:
- Addiction & Mental Health Services: Onsite or closely partnered counseling, detox, and psychiatric support.
- Specialized Housing Options: Separate facilities for those who can’t live in communal settings, such as small “micro-unit” villages or converted motel rooms.
- Case Management: Each resident gets a dedicated case worker to coordinate services and track progress.
- Graduated Independence: Rules and expectations increase as stability improves, allowing residents to “move up” to more independent living.
3. Protecting Against Corruption
When large sums of government funding are involved, corruption and mismanagement are real risks. Solutions include:
- Independent audits with public reporting.
- Decentralized program administration to prevent power concentration.
- Community oversight boards with both housed and formerly homeless members.
4. Balancing Freedom and Safety
The reality is you can’t eliminate all restrictions. A successful program draws the line at behaviors that threaten safety or undermine the housing community, while allowing as much personal autonomy as possible. The best programs focus on building trust, so rules feel like mutual agreements rather than top-down control.
5. The Hard Truth
Even the best-designed system won’t get 100% participation. Some individuals will choose the streets over structure — but a good program can dramatically reduce the number of people in that category.
Miles’ Question
I’m not sure about the level of public support for allowing some drug or alcohol use in housing programs. But reading your last response got me thinking: what if we moved part of the homelessness problem to rural areas, but funded it federally through state programs?
If rural communities received federal or state funding, could we make the problem more manageable by giving smaller cities the ability to house homeless individuals, with local health services able to handle a small number of cases for mental and physical health issues? Instead of concentrating large housing complexes in major cities, we could have smaller housing sites in rural areas that could draw on local restaurants, grocery stores, and health services—without overwhelming them.
And since homeless individuals often receive healthcare on an emergency basis rather than preventive care, wouldn’t this model just shift the cost rather than add to it? Could this actually work?
Beth’s Answer
This is an interesting hybrid approach — decentralizing homelessness support so no single city or service network is overwhelmed. It’s not without challenges, but it has potential if structured carefully.
1. Potential Strengths
- Lower Density, Lower Strain: Rural housing sites with smaller resident numbers could integrate more easily into the local service network without the chaos of large urban shelters.
- Cost Shifting, Not Doubling: You’re right that much of the healthcare cost for the homeless is currently tied to expensive ER visits. Providing stable housing and preventive care could shift those costs into lower-cost medical visits.
- Community Integration: Smaller communities often have stronger social cohesion, and a small, well-run housing program could integrate residents into volunteer networks, local jobs, and churches more easily than in urban environments.
- Reduced Visibility Politics: Cities under political pressure to “clean up” visible homelessness might support this as part of a broader solution.
2. Key Challenges
- Local Resistance: Rural residents may object to any plan that moves homeless individuals into their community, especially if the program is perceived as “bringing in outsiders.”
- Service Gaps: While a small rural town might manage a handful of residents, specialized mental health and addiction treatment often requires travel to larger population centers. That means transportation funding and coordination become essential.
- Economic Dependency: These programs would need stable, long-term funding. If political winds shift, rural communities could be left with obligations but no budget.
- Voluntary vs. Forced Relocation: The constitutional and ethical issues of moving people away from where they have social connections can’t be ignored. Participation would likely need to be voluntary.
3. How It Could Work
- Regional Network: Instead of sending people to any rural area, states could create a network of smaller communities—each with housing and access to medical, mental health, and addiction services—distributed across the state.
- Transportation Links: Federal/state funding would need to cover regular transportation for appointments, job training, and family visits.
- Preventive Care Funding: A portion of the budget could be directly allocated to preventive care providers, reducing the likelihood of costly emergency interventions.
- Community Buy-In: Success would hinge on involving rural leaders early, showing clear economic and service benefits to their towns.
4. Bottom Line
Yes, this could work as part of a national homelessness framework, but it would require:
- Voluntary participation
- Strong transportation infrastructure
- Guaranteed, long-term funding
- Local service integration
Without those, it risks becoming another underfunded “transfer” program that simply shifts people out of sight until they drift back to cities.
Miles’ Question
Beth, one last thought: wouldn’t creating this program also provide more jobs in the local community? Some of the people in the program could even advance to managing the program itself, overseeing housing operations and transportation. Wouldn’t this also support local businesses by increasing demand, so that the money from the federal program flows back into the local economy?
Beth’s Answer
Yes — if designed well, this type of rural homelessness program could be both a social solution and an economic development tool.
1. Job Creation
A rural housing network would require staff for:
- Housing management and maintenance
- Casework and resident support
- Transportation coordination
- Security and facility upkeep
- Healthcare, counseling, and job training partnerships
Some of these positions could be filled by local residents, while others could be advancement opportunities for participants in the program who demonstrate readiness and leadership skills.
2. Economic Multiplier Effect
Federal or state funding injected into rural communities doesn’t just pay salaries — it circulates:
- Staff spend wages locally on housing, groceries, and services.
- Housing sites buy food, supplies, and materials from local vendors.
- Transportation contracts could go to local companies.
Over time, this creates a multiplier effect — every federal dollar can generate more than a dollar in local economic activity.
3. Business Growth
Small towns often have underused capacity in businesses like grocery stores, diners, and repair shops. Serving a housing site’s needs could bring them steady contracts and more customer traffic.
4. Building Community Ties
When participants in the housing program work directly with local residents — whether as employees, volunteers, or customers — it helps integrate them into the social fabric. This makes the program more sustainable by replacing the “outsider” perception with personal relationships.
5. Risk Management
To avoid dependency on a single funding source, these jobs should be tied into broader community development efforts — so if political winds change, the skills and infrastructure remain useful for other purposes.
Miles’ Question
Beth, I think this is a big selling point to the local communities. As a wrap-up — has anyone tried this in the past or in another country?
Beth’s Answer
There are examples — both domestically and abroad — that share elements of what we’ve been discussing, though few match it exactly.
1. Finland’s Housing First Model
Finland has virtually eliminated street homelessness through a nationwide Housing First program, often using smaller, scattered-site housing combined with on-site or nearby services. While not specifically rural-focused, they do place housing outside of dense urban cores to integrate people into smaller communities.
2. Canada’s “At Home/Chez Soi” Pilot
This program tested Housing First in multiple cities, including smaller urban centers, and found that spreading the housing load reduced pressure on large city shelters and improved individual outcomes.
3. U.S. Veterans Affairs Transitional Housing
The VA has used rural or semi-rural transitional housing for veterans, pairing it with job training and local community integration. While not a blanket homelessness policy, it shows that rural-based housing with strong funding can work for certain populations.
4. Challenges to Scaling
Programs that move people away from urban centers often face legal and ethical challenges if the move is not voluntary. Funding stability and local buy-in are key — without them, rural sites risk becoming underfunded and stigmatized.
Bottom Line: While no country has a fully scaled rural relocation model for homelessness, pieces of it exist — and where they are well-funded, voluntary, and tied into strong service networks, they have shown real promise.
Beth’s Summary
The homelessness crisis is too complex for a one-size-fits-all solution. Sweeps and relocation alone simply shift the problem from one place to another. A rural housing network, if voluntary, well-funded, and service-integrated, could spread the load, lower costs, create local jobs, and reduce political pressure on cities. The key to success lies in balancing personal freedom with community safety, preventing corruption, and ensuring that funding is stable enough to make the program both socially and economically sustainable.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment