Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity.
Not sure what you think a drug addicts needs are, because usually at the top of the list is "drugs".
There other services provided en-masse for homeless people with addiction problems but you can't force them to take advantage of them.
The "free-money" isn't about treating the root cause of the recipients addiction the hope is to address a symptom and prevent people with addiction problems from committing crimes to fuel their habits.
But the subject isn't addicts, it's homeless people. Not all homeless people are addicts, and not all addicts are homeless.
Doing this conflation is the worst kind of anti-ethical you can be. Just like assuming other things about whole groups of people.
For this debate, I can really recommend Rutger Bregman and his books. One of his important points about poverty is that people are that: Poor. And that is their problem.
There are plenty of homeless people who are in a poverty trap, as you describe, but I think it oversimplifies the situation to argue the arrow of causality only goes one direction for all homeless people.
I think over-complication is the issue in the states, which in turn makes a lot of these grants go to heads thinking about the issues rather than the actual issues.
I also think it is important to attribute issues where they are due: Mental issues is not a housing problem, it is a health care issue. Not being able to manage money is not a housing problem, it is a primary school problem. Etc.
With all respect for your previous life, it does sound like you needed some quality health care more than a parental system that handed out food stamps (in fear that the money otherwise would have gone to drugs).
SF is a ridiculously expensive city that people from across the US consider (who have homes even) consider themselves priced out of.
It seems mind boggling that people think everyone deserves a home in SF itself, instead of relocation to, say, a new suburb constructed a couple hours away (where housing is cheaper!).
Constructing that suburb would create jobs. The infrastructure needed to maintain it would create jobs. And even if it remains a net cash drain, it'll still likely be cheaper than 17B a year while giving people actual homes with opportunities to work their way up and out
The problem is that many homeless people would genuinely rather live on the streets or in shelters in the city proper where they have easy access to the things they want, versus having a house provided elsewhere.
They want housing near their preferred begging spots and their dealers, basically.
To take an unpopular example: Iran
Iran provides food and shelter to all it's citizens, making sure everyone has their minimum needs met. They've combined this with strict laws against begging. If they see anyone begging on the street someone will come up to them and ask "Why are you begging? Do you have some basic need that's still unmet?"
Outcomes will range from: - Helping them with that need (if it's legitimate) - Directing them to getting some kind of job if they merely want more income (even if it's selling trivial knick knacks on the street) - Presumably there's penalties for repeat offenders
Source: Iranian.
I am not opposing that they are statistically related. But it is not OK to assume that people are drug addicts when they tell that they are homeless. That is normal human decency.
Families are the fastest growing homeless demographic.
Treating unhoused persons as a homogenous population is probably the original sin of modern American homeless policy.
It gives you some useful tricks, though. E.g. if somebody complains about the chronically homeless addicts assaulting people downtown? Why, you just point out that X% of "the homeless" are actually just regular non-addicted people temporarily down on their luck, who just need a free hotel room for a couple weeks.
But ya, most people won’t notice, since they didn’t notice these people before.