Your coverage of the problem of homelessness was both informative and moving. The problem is repeating itself across many states. In an economy which is doing well for the majority, it is a pity that politicians in our Republican controlled state do not appear to have the wit or brains to come up with solutions. The Chinese, a communist country, can build a hospital in fourteen days in Wuhan but our bright sparks in Congress can't find a workable solution to the thousands who sleep on the streets. You would think they might understand that leaving them there to fester is not exactly economically productive. Some politicians of course just throw up their hands in the air disclaiming "What can we do? We mustn't interfere with market forces." In other words "Let them eat cake or just die quietly." Judging from the obits of unclaimed individuals that's what happens. Does having poor people make the well off feel good about their own prosperity? American society is tough .The good Samaritan was not a Republican.

Your coverage did well to explain that the reasons for homelessness are as varied as the circumstances in which people find themselves, be it drug abuse, criminal records, unemployment, ill health, divorce, mental health challenges or just a string of bad luck. So, there's no one solution to the problem but a series of possible pathways. Many of the homeless want to do well. The idea that the poor just want handouts is a myth. Poverty is not a choice. To ignore it just makes it worse. Worse still, the children brought up in poverty face almost insurmountable hurdles in their lives and many of them eventually enter our overloaded prison service.

Arizona has always been a Republican controlled state. We believe in the idea of rugged individualism and independence. There's a safety net but it's not strong and easy to fall through. NGOs and Churches do great work. There's some sort of structure which does work but clearly not enough is being done. Building temporary housing in downtown areas, even just a collection of huts would be a start. Mesa and Scottsdale could do the same. The homeless would need counseling and a period of time to reassess and be assessed. This would be the first stage. Stage 2 where having been screened, they could be moved to more permanent accommodation. Having shelter with a place to rest and sleep would be the first priority. Returning them to productive roles in our society would be the second. An emergency system does not have to be permanent.

This may be too much to ask in the Trump era. Compassion nowadays is in short supply. Kicking people off the bottom rungs of the ladder of economic progress seems more acceptable than giving people a hand up. The latter would result in a more cohesive, stronger society, the present system will just keep filling the streets and the prisons.

I lived in Singapore for many years where I watched the ladder of economic success constructed, where all individuals were given the support and opportunity for them and their children to succeed, to own an HDP (Housing Development Board )flat and to save for their future . The economic ladder was carefully orchestrated. Everyone could succeed if they worked hard and look where that country is now! Their GDP is the same as ours. Is that so difficult? In 1946 we rehoused and re-employed millions of GIs after WW2, surely we can manage a temporary system to provide a better life for a few thousand homeless and the most disadvantaged and put them on the first rung of the economic ladder? We have the resources to do this. We seem not to have the will.