San Francisco and Grants Pass Oregon lawsuits about homelessness highlight this question: Do those who reject shelter choose homelessness?

I hate that this is turning into a debate about 'choice', as it ignores the realities that nearly all of these shelters have. If you're ever curious as to why people would refuse free housing, ask an unhoused individual why they aren't at a shelter. As the article points out in many cases you have to forfeit your belongings or keep them in an area where they will almost assuredly be stolen, you might have to adhere to rules such as being at the shelter relatively early in the evening, may not be able to share space with your partner, might not be able to have pets, might have to attend worship or prayer and so much more.

Nearly every study I've seen that looks at housing first initiatives shows that basically no one refuses free housing when it comes with no strings attached and giving housing in this fashion rather than requiring individuals to share space, adhere to draconian or often puritanical standards, or other stipulations, leads to a large percentage of individuals being able to get back on track to a relatively normal life (remain housed, re-enter the job market, etc). Asking the question of whether it's 'voluntary' doesn't help anyone as the answer doesn't affect what helps these individuals the most. The question seems purely to be targeted at how to manage the problem without creating systems which follow the best science on the subject. It's a guise to justify forcibly moving individuals because they have been deemed an eye sore or they just do not want to deal with them.

I work in Oregon with homeless and addicted individuals. Many of them say they do not want to be in temporary shelters due to the conditions of those shelters. They are not well regulated and pretty much anyone can be in there, sex offenders, mentally unstable individuals, etc. Many of them said they would rather take their chance outside in a tent vs a temp shelter. Many of them are chronic drug users and have no intention in quitting their substance any time soon so that is another layer to this problem.

We have lots of options like inpatient treatment, housing facilities, etc. but they often come with strict rules and guidelines that only the most serious individuals will attempt and make it through. We also have detox services but they are voluntary and most people don’t make it through a week of detox unless they have a program to enter afterwards. Imo I think giving housing to someone who is deep in chronic addiction is a bad idea, we have some of those patients and they tend to live in trap houses where drug users just come and go indiscriminately.

We also have other patients who are working and living their life but they are chronic methamphetamine users. They are not homeless but they are incredibly dependent on their meth use. Many of them do not even get high anymore they just want to avoid meth withdrawals which are not fun.

I think some individuals do choose homelessness but they are not happy about it. I’ve never had one homeless patient say they are enjoying life, it seems they often don’t believe they will be able to escape their situation. The people who do the best are those who still have support from family or friends. We have many individuals with absolutely no one in their life, family is dead or has disowned them or their family is also homeless and in chronic addiction.

Before we entertain that question we should have enough shelter beds where we're asking it. Orange County simply does not (Newport Beach was mentioned, but a lot of the county has had NIMBYs blocking shelters), and I'd wager San Francisco and Grant's Fall do not, either. Only after you have presented a reasonable choice can we assume it has been made, wnd a homeless person going to a new city isn't exactly practical for a shelter.

I'm not averse to forcing people off the streets into shelter, but we are only at a point where we've tried nothing and it hasn't worked in many places.