Agreed. These two things have no relation to each other. Besides, California has laws and regulations that make it extremely difficult to do what appears on the surface to be a compassionate solution to the problem of their homeless. The devil is always in the details. If they were to move homeless populations into those "empty hotel rooms," hotels would more than likely be unable to remove them easily at a later date. California's tenant laws make it very easy for squatters to take advantage. If people refuse to vacate, a property owner is forced to use the courts - at their own expense - to have a person removed. Now multiply that with a number of hotel rooms. And who is going to pay for the damage they cause to the property? In addition, as a business owner, would you want to move that filth into your establishment? There is a limit to the compassion aspect here. Most of these people are on the streets because of drugs - period. They made the choice to flush their lives down the toilet. Therefore, it is not the responsibility of a legitimate business owner to run the risk to their livelihood to help these people whose entire existence revolves around chasing the dragon. They do not have jobs. So, they can only obtain money through handouts and crime. Add to all this the health issues associated with this population. So, in the end, there are very good reasons why these people remain where they are. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more these bleeding heart progressive sh*thole utopias are making it harder for business to continue in these areas through regulations they think will help people who won't even help themselves.