Let's get one thing out of the way first, I support tax money being used to support the homeless, regardless of the cause of said homelessness, so maybe I am no

Let's get one thing out of the way first, I support tax money being used to support the homeless, regardless of the cause of said homelessness, so maybe I am not the correct audience for the article but... I am incredibly confused as to why both this article and the Oliver piece are so proud of themselves for pointing out that not all, or not even the majority, of homeless suffer from serious mental health and addiction problems. Maybe these articles aren't targeted at me, BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW THAT. Is there really ANYBODY who is referring to a single mother living out of a car because her rent got raised when they complain about the homeless?!?! In SF I would imagine most people aren't even referring to your garden variety homeless similar to what is most visible in cities like NY. The actual problem is not being able to park anywhere with anything in your car, and passing people lying on the street that look like they are barely even alive, as well as your traditional human waste and the smell that comes with. I don't want to act as though I am disagreeing with the conclusions of these articles, for the most part I'm not. I'm also not judging people for ending up homeless. Just please stop pretending that addiction and mental health issues are some sort of unfair characterization, because it is clearly a very accurate description of the group that is responsible for the most unpleasant manifestations of the homelessness in SF. I'm also not saying we should stop trying to help and house that specific group either. I'm just baffled by how this is being framed. "A humanitarian crisis, not an unsightly inconvenience"?!?!?!?!?! Has it not crossed the author's mind that IT COULD BE BOTH.