There’s one weird trick to avoiding unsheltered folks in your area: build shelters (or ideally, affordable housing). Major metro areas in California hate it!
There's an even weirder trick: If you don't want homeless people everywhere, build enough housing of the right type where more people can afford housing instead of being expected to stay in the shelter system.
Strangely, the major issue homeless people all have in common is not drugs or mental health issues. It's -- drum roll please -- a lack of housing.
And studies show this strongly correlates to a lack of housing stock and a lack of affordable housing. (Tip: Simply building more housing of pretty much any kind helps bring rents down. Something having to do with market forces. Supply and demand. Yadda.)
I find it a bit of a weird comment. As my city (outside the US) releases land bordering the outskirts of the suburbs for housing development, no one says "What's their plan for unsheltered folks?"
They're releasing land for developers to increase housing stock and hopefully improve housing affordability. Creating shelters. That's reasonable and realistic behaviour. They mention potential schemes for residents becoming home owners (rent to own, something like NRAS in Australia, etc).
Maybe there's an opportunity for charities or government entities to speak with them about a mix of affordable stock, but usually that's done as a trade off for concessions. And not going to appear in the first brochureware site.
Unsheltered is more accurate. For many people “home” has a connotation which is broader than shelter. It might be the place where you feel welcomed or comfortable.
I'd say their plan is to build a lot of houses of varying sizes and styles. Most of the other methods you'd typically use to address homelessness (safety nets, mental health funding, drugs legalisation/treatment and the like) are broader issues.
