There’s nothing a city (or state) can do that will not result in higher and higher expenses from other cities (or states) sending you their homeless. It’s the same problem as providing healthcare (or even just mental healthcare).
In the absence of federal action, the solution thus far has been to use police to harass homeless and keep them moving along or sequestered in certain areas, or to live in suburbs that you need cars to survive in.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted because you raise a valid point: cities often “solve” their homeless problem by shipping their homeless to other cities. After all, a bus ticket is cheaper than providing shelter.
Cities that are extremely homeless friendly find themselves with an influx both organically (some choose to relocate themselves) and from other cities.
This is an issue in Portland and SF, to name just two.
Note: I’m not advocating ignoring or not helping the homeless. It’s just a difficult problem.
This was my thought when reading the parent's comment, though I was curious if they had a particular idea in mind at the city level. It seems like everyone shits on the city, and sometimes rightfully so, but cities ideally function as high-bandwidth/low-latency diverse economic regions where space is consequently at a premium. It seems like there's not a lot of margin within that system if a bunch of people fall outside of that (or are literally shipped in) the nature of the city would have to evolve to solve an intractable problem on its own. Maybe they even make some headway for a while, now the streets are empty and some other cities decide they can start shipping their homeless again.
Legalize drugs, prostitution and all other vices that prop up organized crime.
People who can't contribute within a city, need to be sorted and moved to places where they can contribute in some basic capacity, as simple as working in a grocery store part time in a small town.
It doesn't cost hardly anything to have a small apartment in a small town and have food, a community and a good simple life.
Everyone needs to either contribute, or receive a subsidy from someone who is currently contributing. Society works when people work to make society work. People seem to have lost sight of that.
These would be alternative to tents, slightly more permanent, and therefore have the advantage of allowing some control over their placement. I can see this as a beginning to an alternative way to solve it that could make everyone happy, by spreading out semi-permanent shelter strategically, and preventing all kinds of things by isolating people this way while at the same time providing shelter and ideally hygiene also.
The point is that we should be housing folks with proper housing instead. Sheds do not make everyone happy - would you, if you found yourself homeless, be happy living in a shed for months? What if you have children?
Do you want to share showers and toilets? Always eat communally? Be without your own refrigerator?
Do you feel comfortable with family and friends staying in these sheds?
Sure it's not a straight forward solution. "Proper housing" however, as defined by many city/county authorities, tends to be an overkill solution, in my opinion. I believe setting someone who was on the streets for some time with a regular apartment, might be setting them up for failure because it could prove to be too big of a step to take. One day you have no responsibilities, and then you have to pay rent and keep a job presumably (if we're talking about a real solution that helps them help themselves). A semi-permanent and cheap alternative gives people extra time to figure their life out and make the proper moves to then be able to keep a place and a job.
I used to have a park near me. It was nice. Now it is a small tent city. I wish my city cared.