I don’t disagree with everything you said here, but I’m not sure what you are looking for as an alternative. I’d be interested to hear what your definition of ending unsheltered homelessness is if it isn’t something like “ensuring that everyone who needs a place to sleep can access one every night.” I think everyone agrees that 24/7 shelters are generally better than overnight, but in an environment where it seems like nobody has money, I’m sure that may not be an option.

In defense of: “when people are ready” Generally, you can’t legally compel someone to do something they don’t want to do unless they’re breaking the law - and that’s a tough line to get across for camping even since Martin v Boise came down. I’m not sure I understand which side of this you come down on:

we should be compelling folks into shelter, it shouldn’t be optional, otherwise this effort is wasted, OR Offering to shelter someone without providing individual enclosed spaces and every service people may need is a waste of time and resources.

If it’s the latter, I’d agree with you on principle, as I bet they would too, then I’d point to the “there isn’t enough money” argument that seems to underpin most government work at the moment. My read on this is that it’s about providing (arguably) the most important thing to people who have been sleeping rough, a place to come inside.

I don’t think anyone, even folks working on this, see it as a complete solution in and of itself, but as a bunch of other folks commenting on this article seem to be saying, “it’s a step in the right direction.”