Thanks, I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Totally with you on zoning, rent control, and similar efforts to bully the supply side of the market. Not only do they prevent homes from getting built, they seem like a mixed blessing even for the "winners"--tenants locked into decaying apartments they dare not leave, run by hostile landlords they speak to only through lawyers, in a neighborhood filled with $18 avocado toast. A "protected" tenant might be better described as "housing-insecure," forever at risk of being tossed out if the winds of City Hall or the court shifts against them.
Where you lost me was the people dimension. At the beginning you portray the missing ingredient as a will to end homelessness, then it's housing, then by the end its destigmatization. I suspect people genuinely want to end homelessness, they just also want three or four other things more. A year ago I made a case the missing ingredient is a deeper level of honesty.