Strictly speaking this is simply a straw man via oversimplification (as is nearly the entirety of this post and the others I've seen from bbor in this thread)...
But I've seen this _variety_ of straw man so often that I want to break it out into a specific fallacy on its own.
Not sure what to call it but the "Oh, so you think X decided one day just Y?"
"Oh so you think Elizabeth Holmes just sat down one day and decided _I'm going to scam billions out of investors and risk lives and pretend I made a blood testing machine_"?
"Who sees this advertisement for Tide and just decides _I'm going to buy Tide because I saw this advertisement?"
"Oh so you think I listen to Andrew Tate one day and now suddenly I'm abusing women?"
"Oh, so you think I'm going to do heroin one time and suddenly I'm going to be homeless and addicted?"
No. We're the culmination of dozens, hundreds, thousands of behaviors (with genetic and environmental influences) that create a trend.
So, err, I'll entertain your bad-faith rhetorical question and answer: no, nobody thinks anyone "sat down one day and decided to be homesless [sic] because they'd be coddled." San Francisco (on behalf of the voters, you and I) have created thousands of tiny incentive structures that maximizes the pain people experiencing homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness, while simultaneously maximizing the negative impact to the housed, because you believe everyone who is housed deserves to be the victim of assaults, burglaries and all the other fun because they aren't supporting your policies.
Let me guess: housing-first? Certainly their drug addictions and mental illnesses will instantly vanish with a free house in the most expensive real-estate in the country? Anything short of this, well, they can stay on the street and find comfort in stealing things to fund their heroin/fentanyl self-medication.