I think you've misunderstood my position, based specifically on something I'll quote later in this comment.

Somewhat ironic that the juxtaposition in the article is between an area of California and Texas, with the latter arguably taking the more progressive approach.

Too much emphasis is put on requiring the treatment as conditional for the housing.

For the record, I never believed in or advocated for this approach. I pushed back against specifically the implication that you can just throw these people into some sort of housing and now you can consider the problem "solved" and wipe your hands of it.

I definitely agree that the path to a long-term solution is taking that multi-faceted approach that tackles those root causes simultaneously. None of them should be conditional upon the others, and I believe that each one of them improving empowers the individual to be more capable of improving all the others. It's much more efficient than trying to 100% solve one thing, and ignoring everything else until that one thing is completely eradicated, not only on efficacy, but in resources required.