Homelessness, Addiction, and Public Space

I spend a lot of time thinking about homelessness and drug addiction.  

As a gay man, I see a subset of our gay culture where drug consumption is normalized—Like, of course you want to have “chem sex”!  At the same time, I have seen some close friends and acquaintances descend into chaos and lose friends, money and stability due to addiction.

Most of us are fortunate. If we fell into that spiral, we likely have a support system that would step in. But many people do not. For them, there is no safety net.

So the question becomes: what role should society play? Are people with severe addiction simply exercising free will? I don’t think that framing holds up. Addiction, especially at its worst, strips people of the very agency we assume they have.

That is why I believe society must provide a real safety net. Accountability matters, but it must exist alongside a baseline of dignity and support that we do not allow people to fall below.

I strongly support low-barrier treatment. If someone is ready to get help, the system should meet them immediately, without unnecessary hoops. That means easy access to medication-assisted treatment, mental health services, and case management. The County has a central role here, and it needs to be well-funded, accessible, and persistent in outreach. People struggling with addiction often cycle through readiness, and the system has to be ready every time.

Addiction and homelessness are related but distinct. Many people experiencing homelessness are not addicted, and many people with addiction are housed.  For people where these challenges overlap, housing becomes a critical stabilizing factor. Stable shelter—whether temporary or permanent—is often the first step toward any kind of recovery or stability. Most people experiencing homelessness want to come indoors, and the City should continue to invest in shelter capacity and pathways into more permanent housing. Incentives to move people inside are not just humane; they are effective.

But not everyone accepts those offers.

A subset of people—particularly among the chronically unsheltered—do not accept current shelter or treatment options. This group is disproportionately affected by serious behavioral health challenges, including addiction and mental illness, though not exclusively. The reasons vary, and the solutions need to reflect that complexity. But ultimately, they decline available shelter or treatment, and remain in public spaces in ways that can be disruptive, unsafe, or degrading for the broader community.

This is where the public space dimension becomes unavoidable. When people live outdoors for extended periods without adequate sanitation, services, or support, public spaces can degrade, impacting the safety and health of the entire neighborhood.

Public spaces—parks, sidewalks, transit corridors—belong to everyone. Families, seniors, workers, and yes, people experiencing homelessness. But that shared ownership requires basic rules. Open drug use, encampments that block access, and behaviors that create safety risks cannot simply be tolerated indefinitely.

This is not about punishment for its own sake. It is about maintaining a baseline of order that allows public spaces to function for all. And importantly, clear expectations and consistent responses should not exist in isolation. They should be paired with real, immediate alternatives: shelter beds, treatment slots, sobering centers, and outreach teams ready to engage.

In practice, that means a balanced approach:

• Make treatment easy to access, repeatedly and without judgment.
• Continue expanding shelter and housing pathways.
• Enforce clear, consistent rules in public spaces.
• Ensure that enforcement is tied to offers of help, not just displacement.

What does not work is relying on any one of these alone. Treatment without boundaries can leave neighborhoods struggling with visible disorder. Enforcement without services becomes a revolving door. Harm reduction without pathways to care risks becoming passive maintenance rather than a bridge to recovery.

These are related but distinct challenges:

• Addiction (a health issue)
• Homelessness (a housing issue)
• Public disorder (a shared space issue)

Good policy has to address all three—without collapsing them into one. The goal should be straightforward: help people move toward stability while preserving the shared nature of our public spaces. 

We can hold two truths at once. We can believe that addiction is a health issue that deserves treatment and compassion. And we can also believe that living indefinitely in parks and sidewalks, often in unsafe conditions, is not acceptable for individuals or for the community.

A functioning system does both: It helps, persistently. And it sets limits, consistently.

And yes, this only works if we are genuinely offering safe, accessible, and sufficient alternatives. Without that, enforcement risks becoming displacement.