Correct, ~75% of homeless people are "invisibly homeless", don't have drug use issues, aren't criminals, take showers and don't practice antisocial behaviors. T

Correct, ~75% of homeless people are "invisibly homeless", don't have drug use issues, aren't criminals, take showers and don't practice antisocial behaviors. The problem is that the 25% of homeless who are drug addicts and are extremely anti social completely destroy the system for everyone else. We don't have a good vocabulary for this. The issue is that the street campers at the library were meth heads who shit in the street, screamed at each other in the middle of the night, and caused a huge amount of disruption for the people who live near the library (I live 1 block away from here). We need to have far less tolerance for anti social behaviors in SF, including within permanently supportive housing and nightly shelters. The other issue is that when you spend a ton of money to support the invisibly homeless folks, and tolerate the anti social chronically homeless, you create a giant magnet that pulls in drug users and anti social homeless from the nearby communities and state and you become the dumping ground for everyone's chronically homeless. It is not my problem as a resident of SF to pay for the permanent supportive housing of a chronically homeless meth head from Humbolt county who moved here for a 700 dollar monthly check, reliable street sleeping, passive police force, and steady supply of drugs.