Very simple deductive reasoning actually, I wonder how people did not come up with it yet.
You’re conflating addressing “housing transience” with addressing “addiction, mental illness, and criminal antisocial behavior”. Additional housing units don’t resolve this problem.
https://www.politico.eu/article/to-help-the-homeless-helsink...
> Called Housing First, the Finnish model aggressively closed homeless shelters, calling them traps
The rest of the part you quote is revealing:
"Finland’s experiment in ending rough sleeping has caught the attention of policymakers for one reason: It’s working.
Called Housing First, the Finnish model aggressively closed homeless shelters, calling them traps, and did not require participants battling addictions to recover before receiving keys to a home."
Law enforcement everywhere is about moving crime out to the margins. It will never stamp out all crime, but it does tend to reduce the quantity of it.
And I'm not even convinced that "moving it elsewhere" is necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather have most crime concentrated in a small area than distributing it over a large area. Regardless, people should be allowed to feel safe in their communities, and that just isn't the case for embarrassingly large amounts of SF.