Maybe there's subtext I'm missing, but this doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Some points I gathered:
- It doesn't apply to people with mental health issues.
- They're given a warning if they don't try to engage before they are asked to leave
- After 90 days out of the shelter they're eligible to reenter another one.
Seems reasonable to me because:
- Some people do need the threat of consequences before making this large lifestyle changes and will hopefully end up better off in the end. By giving a warning, they have the opportunity to make more of an effort before they are asked to leave.
- If rotating out people who are not willing or able to engage you're allowing people who are more likely to engage to have access to these resources that aren't being used by the current residents.
I understand there are a lot of external factors causing homelessness, and we do need more shelter capacity but this seems like it would help more people in the interim.