The "one size fits all" approach will never work. All homeless people are not homeless for the same reasons. In my experience I encountered at least 4 very different reasons for homelessness. 1) There are a small group of people who prefer living nomadic lives and will only temporarily accept housing but not follow rules and if required to follow the rules will quickly go back to the streets. 2) mentally ill who have no one to ensure they are cared for and have learned to survive on the streets. These people need more than housing in order to stay off the streets. 3) Addicted people who, like the mentally ill, will require more than just being housed to stay off the streets and 4) those do to unfortunate circumstances find themselves homeless. They will rejoin the workforce with just a little assistance and would accept housing as a part of a boost needed. (Note: We here in California also had the added group of homeless who were prison inmates dumped back into communities without adequate re-entry assistance nor oversight.) The attempt to treat all homeless as a single group comes from not understanding the causes of homelessness and frustration with them as a ongoing problem in our communities.

The ruling presupposes everyone has a right to their own housing. Where did the judge find that right?