I live in Portland, where the overwhelming majority of homeless people deny housing because of this fact. Because they are required to get help.
I absolutely do not think providing more “free” housing is the answer.
Putting them in housing solves a few problems. You know where they are and have a contact and can offer lifelines. Requiring people to get help and removing more control over their lives reduces trust, likely hood of success and they end up hiding the fact. You need to constantly watch them now or drug test them. Easier to live on the street than in your world
What kind of an offer is “come in here, sleep in a crowded room filled with a bunch of other people you may have conflict with, with no place to store your stuff, oh and you’ll be kicked out during the day and have to take all your shit with you”.
And housing doesn’t need to be free, it just needs to be relatively cheap. It wasn’t that long ago that you could afford a basic apartment on a part time job.
What's wrong with a drug-addicted person making their little apartment gross?
Are there people who goad and have addictions? Sure. It’s not like that show is 100% drug addicts though.
In fact that show is literally 0% homeless people. So it’s a complete red herring.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-hous...