A child in Kathmandu is heard saying, 'Keep on playing, but I will beg money for food in the evening.' Such moments are no longer hidden in the city-they appear on streets, under bridges, and in public spaces across the capital. Despite continued infrastructure expansion and visible development, homelessness remains an unresolved and persistent urban reality. For most residents, awareness of this issue does not come from official reports but from daily experience. A short walk through Kathmandu reveals children asking for assistance, elderly individuals sleeping in public areas, and adults without secure shelter. These are not isolated incidents-they reflect a broader and continuing urban condition. Homelessness is often framed through individual circumstances such as unemployment, addiction, family breakdown, or migration-related vulnerability. While these factors are real, they do not adequately explain why the issue persists in a city undergoing sustained economic and physical development. Structural pressures-including rising housing costs, limited affordable rental supply, rural-to-urban migration, and gaps in mental health and social protection systems-remain central and insufficiently addressed. Kathmandu's housing market increasingly excludes low-income populations. For individuals working in informal or daily-wage sectors, rental expenses often consume most of their income, leaving little space for stability or recovery. While urban development has advanced in visible ways, housing inclusion has not progressed at the same pace. Nepal's legal framework recognizes housing as a fundamental right, and local bodies such as Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) are mandated to implement social welfare and support mechanisms for vulnerable populations. In practice, however, homelessness remains only partially integrated into municipal planning. Efforts related to temporary shelter, rehabilitation, and reintegration remain fragmented across agencies, often constrained by limited coordination and inconsistent implementation within existing policy frameworks. At the same time, Kathmandu continues to prioritize visible infrastructure expansion-roads, commercial development, and urban modernization projects. This contrast raises a straightforward governance question: whether housing and social protection commitments are receiving the same level of urgency as physical development priorities already embedded in municipal planning discussions and budgets. Addressing homelessness requires coordinated policy rather than isolated interventions. However, immediate and practical steps are still available. A necessary starting point is the expansion of municipal-level emergency shelters under KMC's social welfare mandate. These shelters should provide safe accommodation, food, and basic healthcare access, while also serving as entry points to structured pathways involving mental health support, employment assistance, and rehabilitation services. Non-governmental organizations such as Manab Sewa Ashram have demonstrated that targeted intervention can produce measurable impact at the community level. However, the scale and persistence of homelessness in Kathmandu require sustained public-sector leadership and institutional coordination. Without stronger alignment between legal commitments and implementation capacity, responses will remain fragmented and temporary. Ultimately, the measure of urban development is not the scale of infrastructure or economic growth alone, but whether a city can ensure dignity for those most vulnerable within it. Homelessness in Kathmandu reflects not a lack of awareness or policy language, but a gap in consistent execution. The question is no longer whether Kathmandu has the tools to address homelessness-but whether it will choose to implement them with the urgency it already reserves for other forms of development.