No one can disagree with that statement. But from the article, this seems to be a typical "ban status quo, promise something better" bill where 90% of the proposal is mysteriously only concerned with the "ban status quo" part:
"Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds."
"Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds."