1. “If you build it, they will come  from other cities.”

Critique:
Offering clean, free, no-barrier services in every neighborhood could attract people from outside Chicago other cities, counties, or even states  who want the same dignity and care. That might overwhelm the system and saddle Chicago with costs for people it didn’t “create.”

Rebuttal:
Yes, but the truth is, people are already coming  they just arrive to a broken system. Chicago is already absorbing the cost of neglect: through emergency rooms, policing, and sanitation. A structured, humane response would reduce the chaos of uncoordinated, last-resort services.
And let’s reframe the fear, call it a rebrand: If other cities start copying a working model, everyone wins. Let Chicago lead  and pressure others to follow.

2. “It would cost too much.”

Critique:
Building and staffing these centers citywide would be wildly expensive. You might ask: Are you going to raise taxes? Cut police budgets? Where is this money coming from? Even if it saves money long term, the upfront investment could be politically impossible.

Rebuttal:
The cost of doing nothing is already sky-high.
ER visits for unmanaged health issues, mental health crises, jail time, shelter use, police overtime  these are all expensive. Cities like Houston and Salt Lake City proved that “Housing First” isn’t a luxury; it’s cost-effective.
Also, investment doesn’t need to happen overnight. Start with pilots. Prove it works. Then scale. If it works in 3 neighborhoods, funding the next 10 becomes a much easier political ask.

3. “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBYism)

Critique:
Even progressive neighbors can get cagey when they hear about centers like this coming to their block. They worry about safety, property values, and “attracting the wrong crowd.” That local resistance can stall or kill even the best-intentioned projects.

Rebuttal:
This is real  and addressable. Transparency, community involvement in planning, and high standards of cleanliness and safety can turn skeptics into supporters.
And the truth is, a clean, well-run, secure facility is far better than unmanaged street homelessness. People are already in the neighborhoods  just unsupported. Wouldn’t you rather have them in a cared-for, safe space than sleeping in the park or on the train?

4. “What about safety and misuse?”

Critique:
“No barriers” sounds great, but what happens when someone shows up intoxicated, aggressive, or disruptive? If you start banning people for behavior, it becomes exclusive. But if you don’t, safety could break down.

Rebuttal:
Dignity doesn’t mean chaos. You can have low barriers and smart boundaries. Think of hospitals: everyone is welcome, but there are rules for safety.
Trauma informed staff, peer mentors, and trained de-escalation teams can manage challenging situations without resorting to punishment or police.
Also, people are far less likely to be disruptive when their basic needs are met. Meeting survival needs often leads to more stability  not less.

5. “Culture change isn’t that easy.”

Critique:
You want people to see care as normal, not exceptional. But changing hearts and minds takes more than nice buildings. People might still view the unhoused with suspicion or judgment, no matter how well the system works.

Rebuttal:
True  but infrastructure shapes culture. What we build reflects what we value. When people see neighbors being cared for instead of criminalized, it begins to shift the narrative.
Think of libraries, parks, or schools  public investments that changed how people think about community. Normalize care, and attitudes start to follow. It’s not overnight. But it starts somewhere.

6. “Why should someone who got drunk get a free bed when I’m barely making rent?”

Critique:
People who are struggling but still managing  working two jobs, scraping by  might feel angry seeing others get “free” services. That resentment can turn into political backlash.

Rebuttal:
The solution isn’t to punish people for needing rest, it’s to expand safety nets for everyone.
This isn’t just for the unhoused  it’s also for the overworked mom locked out of her apartment, or the teen who can’t go home tonight. When people see these centers as a support system for “people like me,” not just “those people,” the resentment starts to fall away.
And let’s be honest: the working poor deserve more, not less. These centers are a step toward the kind of equity we all deserve.

Final Word:

All of these critiques are real  and worth addressing  but none of them are deal-breakers.
They’re invitations to plan smarter, communicate better, and build with humility and adaptability. What I am proposing isn’t impossible  it’s just bold and expensive. I cannot shy from that fact. But money is already being spent and a lot of it. In ways that have gotten us right where we are. I want to spend differently. And that’s exactly what people need right now.