Admittedly, my interactions with the homeless, while much of which occurred while i myself was homeless, did seem related to addiction/mental illness. However, i also met many that clearly had a good head on their shoulders. It's much easier than many may realize to have stability taken from you, and once that occurs, it can be harder than ever to get back on your feet (it often has a snowballing effect), because while you are without shelter you live in a constant state of stress. I was one of the luckier ones that quickly bounced back, in no small part due to the rare kindness of a stranger.
And to expand on that snowballing effect, i have no doubt that homelessness can indeed be just as capable of leading to addiction and mental illness as the inverse. It definitely put my mind into places it has never been before, and without the kindness of a stranger, i can see how the stress of homelessness and the way the majority of society alienated me, avoiding eye contact and the like, and other subtle indications of my sub-human status, could have quickly lead down that path.
No, this is just plain false. There is plenty of research on who is homeless, and all of Shellenberger's claims are refuted by actual research.
Increase in spending on jobs for homeless does nothing for those that are mentally ill. Conversely increase in spending on mental health programs does nothing for those that were simply down on their luck. Given a finite amount of money, there doesn't seem to be a simple solution. And you'll have to forgive anyone that would rather just not spend anymore as the relationship between expenditure and number of homeless is not inversely correlated, quite the opposite unfortunately.
this feels somewhat like an unnecessary take down of an exposes that broadly does a good job talking about some of the challenges and solitions.
What's the truth? Hard to know. We need more data, and honestly? More experimentation, rather than being paralyzed and doomed to re-hash the same arguments since the 1970s.
Personally, walking around SF at night, there seems to be a tri-pointed spectrum between (A) psychiatric conditions (B) drug addiction (C) pure poverty. You can find examples of whatever you're looking for.
Then he started strawman attacks on "progressives." I'm pretty "progressive" and tend to ingest a fair amount of "progressive" op-ed pieces/podcasts/radio programs and socialize with a lot of "progressive" people. Never once have I read or heard someone assert that "drug dealers are victims." I'm sure someone, at some point, has expressed that viewpoint - but it's not even remotely a mainstream viewpoint.
I also see little evidence this person is qualified to speak on the subject of homelessness.