These communities would likely prefer they not be present at all, but sleeping on the streets is the most common compromise on a spectrum ranging from incarceration and institutionalization, bus tickets out of town, shelters, SROs, and paid-by-taxpayers full-fat apartments given to them.

I'm not putting a value judgement on it, but explaining why the original article's position is oversimplifying by saying "it just makes financial sense", while ignoring the arguably-bigger opposition that is driven by social values and norms. Communities continuously make financial sacrifices to maintain preferences.

Most of the "more acceptable" groups you're naming, including artists, students, and young people are already covered by studio apartments or roommate situations. An SRO or low-end extended-stay hotel is commonly expected to bring a seedier element with lower standards, poorer credit/no credit, evictions, etc.

"Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables" - that's fine: both groups can vote and help steer their community to better reflect their views.

People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.

I don't think the GP comment is actually NIMBY. They are pointing out that there are more incentives at play than what the article presents, and ignoring them will cause different problems.

In the case of SROs, if a perception exists that they will cause more crime than benefit provided, then people will vote against them. Understanding anticipated opposition and coming up with a way to address people's concerns would be a successful path to re-legalizing them.

Dismissing opposition with a pejorative is a less successful path.