It was a compelling video. As it happened, a friend from Seattle was visiting and I sent it to him the day before we met and we discussed it extensively. I have tried to educate myself on this general issue for many years, so that I can better make an evidenced-based decision in the voting booth.
I think it is a homeless problem, a drug dependence problem, a mental health problem and more.
One simple approach is to drive "those" people away from "not those" people. In fact, that is a traditional approach. Seattle's approach (in regard to directives to law enforcement) as it was highlighted in the video, was not to do that. I would not like to live in that environment (Seattle) and I do not have the answers. I don't believe there are any simple answers that meet legal, ethical and moral standards.
How much of the problem is "my" problem and how much is "my" responsibility is something that I think everybody struggles with, regardless of whether you are of the "too bad for them" or "do-gooder" orientation or something in between.
The RI tri-pharmaceutical approach is interesting and is well-known, but everything I know about the pharmacological treatment approach suggests that a strong infrastructural approach is also required.
The best I can come up with at this point is to remain open-minded, honor the complexity of the problem, support the efforts of science, respect the data and, to the best that I am able, express myself in the voting booth. Not much of a response, but it is the best that I can do.