You're stuck in a false dichotomy. There's nothing wrong with adopting all the housing reform you want. But we also (additionally not instead of) need something immediate to treat the acute, highly localized problem of mentally ill and drug abuse in encampments. If in fact you have not been to one (e.g. Venice Beach a few years ago) and seen the enormous encampments and destruction they inflict on nearby property, it's hard to understand. Maybe you have?

This isn't about American exceptionalism, because either A) other countries don't have this problem (great!) or B) they do and all the "do it like they do" was just proven wrong as a solution to both the problems or C) they did have this problem and it was solved by these policies - great! The immediate intervention of getting the worst offenders off the street is a temporary solution and housing policy wins long term.

But no matter what there's no reason to push back on two heterogenous solutions because it includes more than just your favorite one.

Americans love being exceptional, especially when it excuses their mistreatment of the poor

> You think mentally ill do not need a place to shower and sleep safely?

Giving a locking door to an addict is a death sentence. As countless experiments have proven, unsupervised shelters all over California have been literally destroyed by addicts and the mentally unwell. I'm talking faeces on the walls, blood and urine everywhere, horrific attacks in the units, and eventually the place just gets burnt down. So these people need supervised shelter. In a facility. Where they're prevented from harming others and themselves. De-institutionalisation was a huge mistake. There were abuses and they needed reform, but throwing schizophrenics and addicts into the street was not kind or humane, and leaving them there is just as immoral.