California could clearly benefit from this. Housing here is treated as a luxury rather than a right. There are plenty on the streets that should arguably be in institutional care.
No, New York mandates that everyone who wants a bed in a shelter gets one. The City does a lot to try to get people into shelters, unfortunately, some people would rather be on the street than in a shelter (some due to mental health issues, some due to concerns about safety in shelters).
It's regrettable that there are people living on the streets, but whose housing in particular do they have a right to? Or to whose labor to provide them with housing? Is it more just to provide them with housing by coercion, or to make laws and regulations in such a way as to encourage and reward charitable activity? Or is there another way that doesn't require an implicit gun at the givers' heads?
Natural resources are fenced off by society, to great profit of the wealthy class. It's not unreasonable to ask society to provide the bare necessities for the least fortunate.
Society doesn't have to be a raw libertarian "paradise" - it's acceptable to say "we should all, together, help house the homeless (with our tax money).
Yeah, as in parents should commit to donating them a home pre-birth, along with insurance on it and they should not be allowed to sell unless they own another home
Then no one will ever be homeless.
That's the only non-state solution that guarantees this outcome (well, barring major catastrophes that destroy the home and cause the insurance to not be effective at replacing it).