Given the comment chain, I’m sure this isn’t a productive use of my time but just to be clear that is not at all what my comment implies. In Perth, where the article is based for example, there are homeless shelters. My point remains that most if not all of them have rules (hint: especially the ones with Saint in their name or vaguely religious sounding), that some are not able to comply with due to the issues they face. Nor do I think “the homeless do this In every city”, or all of them in any given city for that matter, hence my use of “subset”, “a good portion of” and other specifying terms.

but people like you with this viewpoint aren’t going to let them get the help they need.

Your misinterpretation of my comment aside I could probably wager I’ve spent more time with the homeless and around them than most. While they can always use more services and facilities, the group Im referring to (and that the article/OP references) the problem is largely one of rights i.e. involuntary psychiatric detention or outpatient rehab. The former doesn’t happen until they present an immediate threat to others or themselves and once they get released, they disappear and learn to avoid areas (e.g. shelters) where they’re likely to be sectioned by the police again. The belligerent/trouble making group Im referring to (and I’ll reiterate, used the term subset) have generally fallen through the cracks and have absconded from facilities. Or genuinely do not want to attend them due to not wanting “rules”, knowing they’ll be evicted or in the case of violence, knowing they’re no longer welcome there. A more complex approach is required beyond just “building shelters” as the comment I replied to stated.

That is not what they said