I think that’s unfair. First off, most people I know who are alarmed at the upzoning pushed by activists would also be sympathetic towards the situation you are describing, within limits. The problem is that homelessness activists purposely conflate two very different groups - those who are homeless due to bad luck and those who are simply irresponsible (permanent nomads, drug addicted vagrants, and so on). The latter group needs to face the rule of law and experience consequences, not be coddled and encouraged to live at others’ expense.

It's feels a bit weird to call "getting priced out of your home and out onto the streets due to bad housing policy" as "bad luck".

Sure, there are homeless people who moved here specifically because they know the homeless have a not-terrible deal here (not great, but often better than most other places), but I don't see the evidence that these people are in the majority.

Oh, and consider that a lot of the homeless people who are drug addicts or have mental health issues became addicts or developed mental health issues as a result of their homelessness. You have the causality backwards for a lot of folks.

> not be coddled and encouraged to live at others’ expense.

In SF at least, in many (most?) cases it'd be cheaper for the city to just pay to put people in permanent housing (and for mental health and addiction services), than it currently costs to keep them in temporary shelters, plus the cost to deal with disturbances, jail time, cleanups, drug use, violence, medical emergencies, and so on. But no, we can't have that... can't give people things they didn't work to deserve. We'd rather cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Drug addicts are not irresponsible. They are sick. They can't improve without help: treatment and accompainment. It is a mental health issue. Stop dehumanizing people.

If you push them too hard they will either kill themselves or kill you. It is not a choice.