[verteu]

I disagree that the root problem is "destitution" rather than affordable housing.

I haven't seen much good research on the best way to solve homelessness, but most cross-city analyses suggest that high rent (and low housing density) is the main determinant of homelessness rates: https://sci-hub.ee/10.1111/1467-9906.00168

Note that "extreme poverty," "low-wage jobs," and welfare recipients were not significant factors.

A second study claims the "the availability of low income housing and of mental health care are the strongest predictors. Relatively modest investments in improving availability of these services would provide considerable payoff in reducing homelessness": https://sci-hub.ee/10.2307/800641

A third study I can't find now concluded that 25th-percentile-rent (rather than median rent) was the most significant factor (ie, availability of affordable housing).

[TheRealPomax]

That sounds like confusing the cause for the solution: there's a very big difference between "why someone became homeless" (i.e. no affordable housing) and helping "who they are now that they've been living on the street". You don't magically get those folks back on their feet purely by getting them housing, even if getting them housing is a critical step. There are so many more steps that are now necessary.

[verteu]

It's more cost-efficient and effective long-term to prevent people from falling into homelessness. And affordable housing is widely viewed as a major root cause. [1]

Yes, people on the streets should be helped. But if 4 people fall into homelessness for every 1 person place in permanent supportive housing (this is the ratio in SF [2]), we will never "solve homelessness."

[1] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insigh...

[2] https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/pit-hic/#20...