I think it is absolutely true that homelessness is much more nuanced than "housing is expensive." It is also pretty clear from the last 5 years that where SF is spending its money is not as effective as they would like. (it is called out in the article, millions more spent and the problem hasn't changed). There is also the issue that while you have population counts you can't really track individuals, so did last years money get 5,000 people into homes who have been replaced by 5,000 new people for a net change of zero, or was it just ineffective? Hard to say given the data sets available.
One of the observations is that homeless populations tend to self select into encampments. And part of the expense and challenge is that where they choose to camp does not facilitate maintenance (cleaning, services, etc). I have not found any papers or articles on municipalities that have built infrastructure that specifically designed for hosting a homeless encampment. Could you build a system that would support a locally hosted infrastructure? Passive sanitation systems, trash depositories and collection points, water supplies?
One of the observations is that homeless populations tend to self select into encampments. And part of the expense and challenge is that where they choose to camp does not facilitate maintenance (cleaning, services, etc). I have not found any papers or articles on municipalities that have built infrastructure that specifically designed for hosting a homeless encampment. Could you build a system that would support a locally hosted infrastructure? Passive sanitation systems, trash depositories and collection points, water supplies?