I bet it's cheaper to house these people indefinitely than it is to imprison or institutionalize them indefinitely.

One of the benefits of a housing first model is giving the homeless person security and safety. When that need is met they can focus on things like recovery. This "Alternative shelter" model is a joke. Sleeping pods? Basically glamping at this point and never viewed as a permanent home by the residents which means they never feel that security that comes from a permanent home.

I've never been homeless but I've spent a night or two on a park bench. The anxiety and fear of constantly being worried someone could assault you is real. The only way I could sleep is by getting black out drunk.

America needs to step up its housing first model and offer permanent living quarters with basically no strings attached, anything less will end up a failed experiment.

Maybe there's subtext I'm missing, but this doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Some points I gathered:

1. It doesn't apply to people with mental health issues.
2. They're given a warning if they don't try to engage before they are asked to leave
3. After 90 days out of the shelter they're eligible to reenter another one.

Seems reasonable to me because:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Can only try to help unwilling people for so long that you have to consider that this kind of assistance is not limitless and has to be prioritized for people who are interested and willing to at least try to support themselves. Fill up shelters to use them, but when you're at capacity based on what the local government and its policies by extension of the voterbase's willingness to contribute financially can support, you have to make hard decisions.

Will these people end up on the street? Probably. If this feels unreasonable, support candidates pushing to increase/reallocate funding for the program, or volunteer your own time and money to contribute.