In all three articles, look who is doing the talking - or rather, who isn't. Always, the 'homeless' or 'de-housed' are treated as problems, as are their temporary communities - tent cities -, where they come together for companionship and protection. Those shacks and tents are these people's homes.
Rarely does anyone with a sincere concern to 'deal with' 'the problem' consider LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS OF TENT CITIES or including an equal number of such residents in any discussions concerning solving the lack of affordable housing.
Correction. Last sentence should read: But the family itself may be in straitened circumstances and [not] in a position to finance travel or moving expenses.
I've friends who live on the street and I'm at serious imminent risk (constantly) of homelessness.
I don't think this policy is a bad idea. Agreed, there's no altruistic motive behind it; Bloomberg is merely trying to shuffle NYC's homeless problem onto other communities. But why he's doing it doesn't matter if the result may help a few people.
The rare person who may be helped will have one or more family members they'd be happy to reunite with, people who would be equally happily take them in. But the family itself may be in straitened circumstances and in a position to finance travel or moving expenses.
It is crucial to acknowledge that street people or those who are currently house-less can also be advocates. It's an arrogant assumption that members of a given target population - those living the situation NOW - cannot themselves do action research or advocate on behalf of persons who are in similar circumstances.
My own income places me at high risk for homelessness, yet I've contributed as much value in terms of action and research - including producing a powerful book - as anyone who no longer experiences or has never experienced such poverty. (See Policies of Exclusion, Poverty & Health: Stories from the front.)
Most people want to do for themselves, which includes sharing their experiences with a goal toward helping others. It's disrespectful to assume that street people or the house-less can only ever be subjects of studies and recipients of gifts from people in better circumstances, rather than leading researchers and providers.