You're right of course that the poorest people would still be unable to afford homes. Building more homes would reduce homelessness but not eliminate it.

The problem with NIMBYism isn't saying no to building more homes per se, it is saying no to more homes while saying yes to more jobs and more commerce that creates the problem.

Someone who works in SF, but lives 40 minutes away due to cost, should be considered a constituent of SF and their voice is as valid as that of a resident.

  while saying yes to more jobs

I think it’s more likely that mental illness and addiction are bigger factors, along with an absence of good interventions and an abuse of the prison system. Statistics showing a majority of American homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both certainly support that view over yours, and reveals the deep complexity of solving the problem. You can’t just shove someone from the streets into a house and call it a day, they need far more support than that.

The causality of homelessness and addiction is more like a negative feedback loop. eg No insurance, get sick or injured, self medicate with alcohol or oxy, loose job, loose housing.

The link between mental illness and homelessness is pretty straight forward.

Because I've never seen anything that suggests that a majority of homeless people have addiction/mental illness problems. A higher percentage of such issues then the housed population, sure, but not a majority.

AFAIK, you can find a direct correspondence between increased rental prices and increased homelessness, and that's the main contributor. https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordabil...

I mean unless you go back to the 1970's before the U.S. Government literally decimated it's housing budget (https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/the-rise-of-homel...)

https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf

https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-pop...

https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mental...

In January 2015, the most extensive survey ever undertaken found 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States. Depending on the age group in question, and how homelessness is defined, the consensus estimate as of 2014 was that, at minimum, 25 percent of the American homeless—140,000 individuals—were seriously mentally ill at any given point in time. Forty-five percent of the homeless—250,000 individuals—had any mental illness. More would be labeled homeless if these were annual counts rather than point-in-time counts.

https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf

Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs. Alcohol abuse is more common in older generations, while drug abuse is more common in homeless youth and young adults (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007). Substance abuse is much more common among homeless people than in the general population. According to the 2006 National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 15% of people above the age of 12 reported using drugs within the past year and only 8% reported using drugs within the past month.

https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/fixing-the-system/fe...

https://nationalhomeless.org/about-homelessness/ lists housing and poverty as the major factors contributing the homelessness, and under other contributing factors says that, "Approximately 16% of the single adult homeless population suffers from some form of severe and persistent mental illness"

I could go through and argue these step by step, but I think my larger point is that homelessness is an economic issue. Drug addiction rates haven't increased over time (see https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/chart-s... ) It's harder to talk about mental health rates, since so many mental health issues are untreated and increased mental health treatment can be mistaken for new rates, but I've seen nothing suggesting that rates have increased dramatically since the 1970s. Homelessness however, increased dramatically. So I don't think you can place addiction or mental illness as the main contributor.

Getting to your statement on housing first initiatives, even if homelessness was 100% addiction and mental illness related, a stable location allows better continuity of care, provision of treatment, followups etc. Certainly sticking someone in a house isn't enough, but it can be a meaningful start, even if the person suffers from addiction or mental illness. It also reduces street victimization, infectious disease spread, hypothermia, etc.

Also, I'd note that homelessness is not just a single person issue. Many families become homeless, the National Center on Family Homelessness estimates 1 in 30 children are homeless (https://www.air.org/center/national-center-family-homelessne...). Housing first helps kids and families. Incidentally domestic violence is one of the biggest causes of women and families being homeless :-(.

I believe treating homelessness as merely as mental health/addiction/public health issue and not an economic consequence to reductions in affordable housing, housing assistance, and lower real wages for low income workers misses the point.

We've probably strayed a bit far from talking about stadiums, so I'll leave it be.

Solving the entire problem is more complex than more housing supply, that doesn't mean that more housing supply isn't an important part of the solution.

Even in SF with the legendary homeless problems there 1000 people off the streets would make a gigantic impact.

But what about building a giant homeless shelter instead of a stadium? Or.. how about having homeless dorms in the stadium? May be just trying would help?