Homing Parrots

Solution to Homelessness

Political DNA Saturday by the PolicyKeys Editors & POLI the AI:

This article concludes our week of publishing on a solution to homelessness—Industrial Park Transitional Housing. Every day in America, there are almost 700,000 people who don’t have a home, and although about 500,000 of them can work full-time, the logistics are too complicated.

Quick SET (Shelter, Employment, Transportation) Housing for Involuntary Homelessness to get back into the mainstream would make zoning changes for transitional housing in, next to, or near industrial parks to make it easy to walk to work. 

Our Solution to Homelessness

Our Monday puzzle drop article has an introduction to Quick SET Transitional Housing for the Homeless, including a deep dive into the key YES and NO reasons. You can see the Tuesday BOX SCORE for this week’s puzzle here. Be prepared to be shocked by Wednesday’s Politically Strange Bedfellows. On Thursdays, we listen for the signal in the Noisy Guest article to understand difficult-to-call roles better. On Fridays, see how our Political Digital Twin can help you make up your own mind instead of marching to the beat of political parrots.

We predict a 70% ±4 strong super-majority of roles in this country to support Quick SET Transitional Housing, including a majority of each of the four sides of the political tablemaking this a Leaderboard-worthy idea.

Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 32%, the media’s 27%, and the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.


Saturday’s Political DNA Report: Politics 4.0 is based on this ground truth,

“There is a time to save and a time to spend, a time for freedom and a time for laws—where can we agree?”

This yields four primary conditions: Abundance v Thrift and Commerce v Governance. Poetically, their abbreviation is ACGT, just like human DNA; this shared political DNA helps us understand complex public policy solutions more clearly than just having political parrots endlessly squawking their party’s scripts at us.

Our Solution to Homelessness 

What does our shared Political DNA have to say about Quick SET Transitional Housing for the Homeless?


A1. Proximity: Living next to potential employment opportunities provided by industrial parks can offer a stepping stone out of homelessness, creating a sense of self-sufficiency and providing access to abundant resources through steady employment. Furthermore, these transitional homes would utilize underused spaces, enhancing the efficient use of land, a precious resource.

A2. Upskilling: Expanding zoning to include residential properties in industrial areas presents intellectual growth and skills training opportunities. These diverse industries offer job training and educational programs, enriching the intellectual capital of the residents.

A3. Support Systems: The introduction of housing within industrial zones can promote the abundance of holistic support systems, providing residents with access to services like counseling and healthcare through potential partnerships with local industries. This cultivates a network of resources that goes beyond material wealth.

A4. Community: Incorporating residential spaces into industrial zones invites a generosity of spirit, fostering a sense of community between employers, employees, and residents. This integration can break down societal barriers and reduce the stigma associated with homelessness.


T1. Lower Transportation Expense: Co-locating housing with industry promotes thrift by reducing transportation-related expenses and environmental impact for workers in these apartments. It optimizes time usage, is a valuable resource, and decreases commuting stress.

T2. Better Land Use: Developing housing within these industrial zones can reduce urban sprawl and help preserve natural habitats and agricultural land, representing a thriftier and more sustainable use of the environment.

T3. Leveraging Resources: The principle of doing more with less is embodied in this approach. Integrating housing within industrial zones leverages existing resources to meet multiple societal needs, minimizing waste and promoting efficiency.

T4. Lower Social Services Costs: From a risk management perspective, these developments can help reduce societal risks associated with homelessness, such as health risks and public safety concerns. This initiative can also mitigate future social service costs related to homelessness.


C1. Economic Growth: Altering zoning laws can stimulate the local economy by creating new construction jobs and increasing demand for local businesses. The increase in nearby workers, residents, and consumers will foster local economic growth.

C2. Innovation: This change can encourage innovation in housing solutions and industrial park designs. It allows architects and urban planners to think creatively about mixed-use developments without NIMBY red tape.

C3. Solves Labor Shortages: Altering zoning laws to allow residential units in industrial areas can foster a diverse workforce close to workplaces, thus helping local businesses attract and retain talent. This could increase productivity and enhance the vibrancy of the local economy.

C4:  Encourages Onshoring: The creation of housing in these areas might incentivize industries to invest more heavily in their surrounding communities instead of overseas, leading to an increase in local commerce and improved amenities for the residents. 


G1: Justice for All: Enabling housing in industrial zones can help achieve the governance goal of justice for all. It promotes equal opportunities for secure housing, irrespective of socio-economic status.

G2: Public/Private Partnerships: This zoning change represents synchronous decision-making, requiring collaboration between public entities, private businesses, and community members. This collaborative effort can strengthen community ties and lead to more equitable outcomes.

G3: Self-Sufficiency: From a liberty perspective, altering zoning laws can provide more housing options and employment opportunities, enhancing personal freedom for those transitioning from homelessness. Ultimately, it supports the broader societal goal of strengthening individual liberty, self-determination, and economic mobility.

G4: Responsive Government: Changing zoning laws to allow for residential units within industrial zones can illustrate the effectiveness of responsive governance, demonstrating that our institutions can adapt regulations to meet evolving societal needs. This could build public trust and encourage civic participation.


As simple as it seems, the housing solution for the employable homeless through implementing Quick SET (Shelter, Employment, and Transportation) housing in, next to, or near industrial zones faces a formidable obstacle: NIMBYism, or “Not In My Back Yard” sentiment. NIMBYism is a reaction by residents in a community against a proposed development or project, especially ones viewed as unfavorable or potentially disruptive.

Initially, POLI gave this solution a promising score of 86% ±2, positioning it among the top three on the National Idea Leaderboard. However, when the editors factored in NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) sentiment, we felt compelled to lower the score to 70% ±4. This adjustment, though considerable, still secures the plan a respectable spot on the Leaderboard. We’re keen to discover if POLI, in this instance, proves to be the more accurate forecaster. We’ll find out only through future polling and the development of more transitional housing. Disconcertingly, on this subject, our AI POLI may exhibit greater empathy than its human counterparts. 

On the conservative side, the NIMBY rubs are the concepts of property rights and the free market. Many conservatives see zoning regulations as safeguards that maintain their neighborhoods’ character, safety, and economic value. They often argue that affordable housing disrupts these established norms. They worry about potential drops in property values and increased crime rates that might occur with the introduction of this new, vulnerable population. Some may express concern that these housing initiatives could negatively impact local businesses and alter the community’s identity.

Moreover, conservatives may also fear the potential for an influx of outside residents, which they view as threatening their community’s stability. They may argue that local resources and infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, are not equipped to handle a sudden increase in population.

From a liberal perspective, NIMBYism manifests in different ways. While liberals generally advocate for social equality and affordable housing, some express concerns about the potential impact of these transitional housing initiatives on the vulnerable populations they aim to serve. They worry that concentrating willing and able homeless people in industrial areas might result in “ghettoization,” inadvertently creating pockets of poverty that could further exacerbate social inequalities. 

Furthermore, liberals may voice concerns about the environmental impacts of such housing projects. For a reason, industrial parks are not traditionally residential: they often house factories, warehouses, and other establishments that could pose health and safety risks. Exposure to industrial pollutants could have profound health implications for the new residents. 

In addition, liberals might fear the erasure of local culture and community as new developments transform familiar spaces. They may argue that the proposed changes could displace long-standing communities and disrupt local economies. They might also be concerned that these initiatives could lead to gentrification if not managed carefully.

Both conservative and liberal NIMBYism reflect a common human tendency to resist change, significantly when it might affect our immediate environment or lifestyle. These reactions are fueled by fear of the unknown and a desire to protect one’s interests. Yet, these concerns often overshadow the more significant issue: the need to provide a meaningful solution for employable homeless people and the working poor. 

Addressing NIMBYism will require a combination of education, dialogue, and compromise. It’s critical to include community members in the planning and decision-making process to help them understand the broader societal benefits of these projects and to ensure that their concerns are considered. 

Indeed, the disparity between POLI’s forecast and those of the editors could reflect the deep-seated NIMBYism inherent in our society. Yet, this gap also presents an opportunity to challenge our assumptions and rethink our approaches to homelessness. Remember that the goal is not to score political points but to build a more equitable, productive, thriving, and compassionate society.

Here’s the thing: on paper, our solution to willing and able homelessness is shockingly easy, but the uglier side of human nature is getting in the way. All it would take is two or three 72-unit apartment complexes per county in the US, in, next to, or near industrial parks, so these folks won’t have a transportation problem getting to and from work. In other words, all employable homeless folks could be reasonably self-sufficient in a year or two after putting away some money to trade up to housing more to their liking. 


Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 32%, the media’s 27%, and the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.


POL-ICYMI Last Week’s Puzzle

You can read an introductory article about ‘Upsizing SCOTUS to a Grand Supreme Court’ and a more detailed explanation of the key YES and NO reasons here. Here’s Tuesday’s BOX SCORE article. You might be shocked by the Politically Strange Bedfellows for and against Upsizing to a Grand Supreme Court. Every Thursday, our Noisy Guest article details the hardest to call Roles. Fridays, see how a random Political Digital Twin can use our Personal Public Policy Advisor report. Saturday, we wrap up the week with our shared Political DNA. We’ve gamified our method, and you can find this week’s political role-playing puzzle at PolicyKeys.com. You can see the whole game board for last week’s puzzle here.

We predict a 71% ±4strong super-majority of roles in this country, including a majority on each of the four sides of the political table, in favor of Upsizing SCOTUS to a Grand Supreme Court, which makes it a National Idea Leaderboard-worthy solution.


PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? is a real-life role-playing game. Each week, there are sixteen sets of eight ‘rival’ roles. Sit awhile in each of their eight chairs and predict whether a majority of people in those roles would say Yes or No to the week’s question. POLI* The AI and our Editors parse through over 4000 variables—so you don’t have to. The best ideas land on the Idea Leaderboard if a majority of each of the four sides of the political table agree. You can play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com. *Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative


Where Can We Agree? (Why Don’t You Want To Know?) is our anthem.

You can play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com.


A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree?® Puzzle drops every Monday at 7 a.m. Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ in the upcoming book, Politics 4.0: How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize America. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative consensus-building approach.


Further Reading

Chronic Homelessness
National Alliance to End Homelessness

Rapid Rehousing
National Alliance to End Homelessness

Industrial Zoning Standards
American Planning Association

Does Rapid Rehousing Work? Well, it Depends
Org Code

Rapid Rehousing
Center for Evidence-Based Solutions to Homelessness

Manufacturing Worker Pay

The High Cost of Transportation in America

Job Openings & Labor Turnover Rates

How many homeless people in America
USA Facts

Learning about Homelessness
Becker Freidman Institute University of Chicago

California Democrats were in a NIMBY Mood
Time Magazine

Thinking about Right NIMBYism

Making Apartments More Affordable

Housing and Homelessness

Effects of Housing Vouchers
Taylor & Francis Online

Four Kinds of Homelessness
HUD Exchange





, ,