Nonetheless, no city is responsible for providing pleasant housing for everyone who comes there. The law on that is now quite clear.
Newsom tried this while he was mayor. His conclusion was that for every person they put in housing, two new people showed up on the street.
Another issue was that most people they put into “temporary” supportive housing never moved out. A significant portion of SF’s budget goes towards paying for the housing of formerly homeless people. The city won’t put them out on the street, so why would they ever leave?
to me their sentence reads more like if the shelter is worse than prison, might as well do something to get into prison.
Would you use a shelter where you can't control light switches, get woken up by a siren, get your stuff stolen, probably have to share showers and kitchen with junkies, if you are even allowed to cook your own food?
For most of those, I either don't find any support, or it's actually contradicted ("get your stuff stolen").
"cook your own food" -- how do they manage that if they live on the street?
VDP does mention:
"fully-functioning computer lab
free weekly haircuts
shower and laundry facilities"
So I think you are mostly making stuff up.