If I am not mistaken, hasn't housing first basically saved money that would be spent on ambulances, hospital visits, shelters, jail visits, etc. that would be spent on homeless people?

I know in Seattle, for example, housing first ultimately cost taxpayers less money. It also saved money in North Carolina. I can try to look into more studies from the United States on cost reduction as it relates to housing first interventions, but it has certainly saved money in other nations it has been piloted in. I can continue doing research on this if you want exact figures, but it seems that a lot of the data is still being interpreted in many pilots.

> article about how Los Angeles is spending $1,000,000.00 (per fucking unit!)

I am not going to make a case for housing in this particular instance, or weigh in on if $1,000,000 is worth it, because, frankly, I am not equipped to discuss what the reasonable cost for a housing unit should be in LA.

However, what I do find in a lot of these discussions is that the money spent on an intervention is discussed in isolation. Articles will always emphasize how much money is spent in a given intervention, and not how much is spent otherwise, and in turn, saved via the intervention. This is why I am EXTREMELY skeptical when people push back against housing first.