Fine. And I think I (and 1 or 2 other replies to your comment) have also addressed that a homeless shelter is not sufficient to put someone on a stable path to return to being a "productive member of society" (all hail capitalism, for productivity is the goal of life).

Or what do you want me to address in regards to this sentence? That you're not that heartless, because hey, the homeless in your world won't freeze to death, they can go to the shelter. Despite the fact that you think actually helping them long term by offering them the apartment (which the article says is cheaper than taking care of them as they remain homeless) and a path to normal life, that's just too much, and unfair?