Having spoken to a number of homeless folks, a common pattern is that they really aren’t interested in housing. If you have no dependents, would you rather spend your life a slave to the capitalist corporation/mortgage/property-tax/landlord complex, or just camp out in an area with nice weather year-round, in a community of like-minded people, doing whatever suits your fancy?
I don't know what dynamics were at play when you asked this question or what you specifically asked, but those things can affect the answers quite a lot.
It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
> It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
What’s the difference? Being “interested” in something means being willing to pay its price it in order to reap its benefits. There exist plenty of folks who aren’t willing to pay the price of “work all day and live in a less desirable area” to reap the benefits of “have an address” when they can pay the price of “live as a vagabond” to reap “do as they please 24/7 in some of the most desirable regions on earth”.
Anyway they got homeless people in frozen ass places like the twin cities too. What's your read on the benefits they are reaping?
Regarding homeless folks in areas with inclement weather, as I have not had the opportunity to get to know any of them I will not attempt to speak to their experience.
The extent to which people ignore the obvious point that homelessness is exploding in the most expensive cities, like SF, but not in less expensive cities, I find mind boggling.