The article cites several sources, remains void of opinion, and shines light on the issue with homelessness in California, in addition to the shortcomings of the system they have adopted to deal with it. The one gripe I have is that they open discussing the current White House administration, and essentially drop that end of the topic almost immediately. I think either leave that out, or elaborate further, otherwise it is tangential to the article.

Near the end of the article, the author states "advocates believe more radical investments in shelter beds, mental health resources, and, crucially, affordable housing are needed". The article seemed well researched, but the topic is misleading -- of course calling the police doesn't help the homelessness issue, because police aren't the correct avenue for resolving a societal failing like this. One researcher, Herring, was quoted a lot. The author mentioned that Herring's research included living for 9 months on the streets -- seems like there's more to this aspect of the story, no? I found that a surprising tossed out fact without any followup. So, while I think this article is fairly accurate, I also think it's written the wrong way to address the issue. The title is like "Why breathing air doesn't work for fish", it's obvious and at the same time implies that this should be a solution but is not. Misleading headlines seems to be the norm, nowadays -- but it's a propensity that is damaging reporting.

Truly fantastic piece of reporting. Author Sarah Holder provides a ton of cited sources, remains balanced throughout, and provides a ton of needed context around the practical implementation of many of San Francisco's homelessness policies. A worthwhile read for anyone interested in solving or better understanding this crisis.