Is it really too much to expect you to read the paper, which I've referenced, and pointed to two of the case studies as particularly valuable?

I'm not an expert, it doesn't make sense for me to do more than point to the expert opinions which I consider valuable here.

It's none of the things in your paragraph.

Open drug scenes are not caused by homelessness so housing the unhoused does not in itself solve the problem. It takes more than that.

One of the reasons I care about this is the evidence that housing-first policies fail if and when there are open drug scenes.

I've encountered OP before as a commenter. They use verbose diatribes to try to shuffle their own (quite radical) personal moral convictions past the HN crowd. For what reason, I do not know, but it is to me indistinguishable from a lack of real understanding. It reminds me of economists who grow up only reading Hayek, never having seen the inside of day-to-day business operations.

Unclear if "OP" is them or me ( ͝סּ ͜ʖ͡סּ)