While housing is the solution to true majority of homelessness (like your individual income experience with the teacher), people like the individual above above make valid observations. They’re pointing out problems that, at the very least, get intermingled with consequences of homes being unaffordable for all. This need not be a value judgement on their character. It is a value judgement on actions, which is something that not only is fair (all are in control of what they choose to do), but necessary for a functioning society (how else do you morally compel folks to follow laws and determine responsibility if not by one’s actions?).
The solution is to both make housing affordable to every person *and* ensure everyone who needs it takes it.
If you're talking about working people being priced out of homes in stupidly low-density cities (which places like Seattle and Portland are), the greater part of the solution is just building more so that supply rises to match demand.
Artificially suppressing the supply of homes via government action (restrictive zoning) then helping the people who lost homes as a result via government action (social services funded by redistributive taxation) is just so wasteful that I don't even know where to begin.
Just like building more lanes to match the demand of traffic, yeah?
Expanding roadways are an example of induced demand, which means that for some class of things, as it gets cheaper (or qualitatively better/less costly, as in the example of traffic), more people consume it by shifting preferences from alternatives, and in the end it's just as pricey (or qualitatively poor) as before. Is your point that as housing gets cheaper in a place, more people will be housed and eventually the equilibrium goes back higher?
If so, isn't that the goal? More people are still housed than before.
I was actually in downtown Seattle last night (not seeing Taylor Swift though). These people who line the streets are not in shelters because the shelters do not let them use drugs. They are in tent cities overdosing off fentanyl whilst virtue signalers like you scream that there isn't enough housing.
Across Lake Washington in Bellevue, where the median rent price is 50% higher, there are none of these drugs addicts, so if it is a housing problem, why are they all centered in Seattle? Because Seattle City Council, King County all allow it to happen.
It seems you are simply saying that there should be no refuge... Al least not 'amongst' society.
But to that, I'd also point out that "refusing help" is hardly the reason seattle/portland have so many homeless people. A lot of these people have been priced out of apartments. Some have suffered from mental health issues (or have developed mental health issues after becoming homeless).
My son's teacher's aid was temporarily homeless while being fully employed. She was simply priced out of living anywhere. Do you think that was a result of substance abuse?
The attitude of your post is actually part of the reason homelessness is so bad. It's the view that people are homeless because they did something wrong to deserve it. Addressing homelessness requires compassion and funds. You can never make it go away all together, but you can relieve it simply by giving people a place to exist.