Lots of good ideas coming forward here.
I'm running out of further suggestions -
all I can do is repeat what's been suggested
previously.

I'm not sure what will work but one thing's for
sure - some leadership is needed.

Research shows that
there are over 55,000 properties that have been
lying idle for extended periods. I still don't see
why not tax those vacant properties in order to
create a home for someone who really needs it -
like women and children fleeing violent homes who may
have missed out on housing support because there
wasn't enough supply to meet the demand.

As stated earlier -

Such a scheme is already under way in Britain, where
councils have the authority to charge a 50% premium
for any property that has been unoccupied for 2 years
or more. If adopted here, a vacancy tax would encourage
property owners to either release housing to the market
or make a financial contribution. The revenue generated
through the levy would be about $79
million a year, according to modelling by Launch Housing - it
could then be used to fund affordable homes for thousands
of women and their children trying to escape violence and
poverty.

Dear Armchair Critic - I think your suggestions are great.
And what you and leoj are saying makes a great deal of
sense.

Dear ttbn,

I'm also not sure about vagrancy being a crime.
That was my husband's suggestion. He seemed
to think that the police should have more
control over the situation. But I agree -
I'm not sure if forcing people to do what
they don't want is going to work. As others
have said - incentives are needed for change
to occur.

There is nothing new about moving less fortunate people to places where there is housing. There's a small SA town near the Victorian border called Wolsely, which used to be where rail passengers changed trains before the rail gauge was standardised. When housing was no longer needed for railway workers, the homeless and hopeless were sent their to live. Similarly, when my own home town fell on hard times, many Housing Trust homes were made available to people from all over the state.

Not all people without somewhere to live have brought their situation on themselves, but there are opportunities for geographic change, which surely must be better than remaining homeless.

"Not all people without somewhere to live have brought their situation on themselves, but there are opportunities for geographic change, which surely must be better than remaining homeless"

Agreed

There's also the ones who have serious alcohol and
drug problems that have to be addressed before
a change can be made for their homelessness.

The following link explains:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/ezard-homelessness-and-alcohol/7130482

Well Foxy, as you often say, your mind is made up and it will not be changed. But many people realise they can exercise judgement independent of the talking points of political parties where they choose to be autonomous.

Everybody is aware of the 'Always say no' approach of Shorten and ors, the uncooperative *bleep*-stirring that in modern times is the first choice of political parties who want to dislodge the sitting incumbents.

My posts on the previous page 6 dealt with illicit drug use, including alcohol. There is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained from nudging the affected to move to already available, cheap country housing.

It changes their environment and gives them a fresh start. It would provide jobs in country towns that sorely need that. The homeless are immediately housed and there are effective models of group-supportive housing available. They are far more easily observed and help is more easily targeted, more specific.

After all, that is what Greens and other greedy Chardonnay leftists are pushing for the old. That the old be forced out of the homes in which they have lived for their lifetime and have raised their families, to be taken advantage of by entrepreneurs who have developed rabbit warren high rises in formerly cheap (now high priced thanks to the entrepreneurs) areas. It is already happening and has been for some years, with wedge politics from both sides of the Parliament to increase the psychological pain.

Excepting where the relocations of the claimed homeless are concerned, it is all positive. They would be going to homes on lots of land and can expect to get full government support. They get it for free. They lose nothing and it is all gain. Think health and what is more important than that?

Of course they do lose their dealers, their squats and the shops and residents they thieve from. Labor and Greens lose a negative political placard, but could stand to gain through actually achieving something practical for once and by being positive, which is also good modelling if they choose it.