Yes. We need a two part solution. For the first part, the city should offer all the medical (mental and physical) care they could want, as well as any help they may need to get off the street. For the other part, the city needs to arrest and prosecute those who do are clearly mentally stable and just enjoying a drug filled vagabond life on the city streets.
What about individuals who prefer tent dwelling and regular work (paid and volunteer) but eschew both illegal drug use and unemployment?
I have a tent I could call a home but am not entirely comfortable crashing wherever I can, although generally I like being outside as much as possible. Tent dwelling is also historically well-respected, hard housing being the niche of farmers and royalty. I'd go as far to say that if people in tents aren't safe it's not a good neighborhood, because tents are fragile. They're also not garbage: some of them are fireproof and UV resistant with two or three shells. And, if you've never built housing, I can tell you: it is a huge chore for hundreds of people, including chemical workers, lumberjacks, metalworkers, and coal miners.
Why not build a Black Rock City where the Burn never stops? If cities sponsored that niche, the gig economy would ramp up to "unstoppable machine" instantly. Sociologically, there's not much difference between a tent city at a festival and an apartment building with a range of incomes, in terms of deviancy and community struggles. From a housing and urban development perspective, some of the new textiles are better and more sustainable than industrial construction.
> Why not build a Black Rock City where the Burn never stops?
You know, that would actually be a fascinating thing to see. I doubt it will ever happen given how litigious our society is, but that seems preferable to what we're doing now. San Francisco spends about $250 million on homeless services[1], but you'd never know from walking around. You could probably fund a non-stop Burn with that; the budget for a 65,000 person burn for a week is 37 million[2]. You'd have fewer people and less overhead so I think it would work.
How coordinated was it though? I also think part of the solution is to provide something more appealing to the mentally ill homeless and the lifestyle-homeless. There is a lot of space an hour or two from most major cities that could be used in a project like this.
Something of a commune, heavily staffed with mental health professionals and with very attentive services (medical, cleaning, garbage). Encourage the more willing to undertake/share those roles. Make it feel somewhat self-organised and free.
Run a very loose "street school" - open-air where possible, 1-2 hours a day, variety of interesting topics. (I'm surprised they don't try doing that in SF.)
Burners are mandated to be self-sufficient and leave no trace; only chemical toilets are provided. If that ethic was practiced by this population, there would be many more options.
