From 2020 – 2022 six US states introduced bills that would make sleeping on public property a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and a month in jail. In 2021 Texas became the first state to pass a statewide law which banned public homeless encampments statewide and pulled state grant funds from non-compliant cities. Proponents of these laws argue that that leaving tens of thousands of Americans—often with severe mental illness or substance use problems—on the streets for decades until they can all be provided with permanent, supportive housing is not a viable or humane model. Opponents argue that the laws do not provide housing solutions and simply encourage homeless people to relocate to other states.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of Homeless Encampments
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Homeless Encampments
@CRF2507 1wk1W
My stances on homeless people staying in the public spaces varied on certain rules in check and considering balence of stances from creating more programs to provide homeless people free food, clothes, medicine, and shelter, any people has right to take a nap in public place if no people are wanting to taking their spot and if they're being disrespectful or damaging the park and public places, they have the rights to press charge on them in criminal offense, and people also has right to encamp in public spaces if only designated in special event only.
It should not be a criminal offense to simply exist on public property but there should be laws around what kind of activities can be done such as encampment or creating a public disturbance.
They should not be allowed to sleep in public areas but away from public areas with a lot of people.
No, on the accordance that wait time is long for available shelter to open up and that any opportunity to be housed should be taken but also that there should be more shelter and affordable housing and plans other than section 8 that are open to people without homes or low income families.
It depends on the property. We should have designated areas for homeless people. We should also have more shelters for homeless people
If they refuse homeless shelters, there should be a mandatory drug addiction treatment place they can go, not in the streets
No because I think that it would make the streets look more shady but I do think that we should make more programs so people don't have to be on the street.
I think there should be better shelters, some are horrible and bad things happen in some. Also I believe there should be designated camps that provide some sheltering and water and at least bathrooms.
It's hard to have a yes or no statement, due to the various reasons as to why an individual may refuse available shelter or housing. It's important to consider these various factors before making an deceive statement.
Yes, more programs need to prove essentials for these people as well as less anti-homeless architecture that is meant to take away safe spaces for people to sleep.
Most local governments own some tract of land that could be turned into a ‘campground’ that has bath and shower houses, trash service, mail boxes and a small grocery store. This would be reasonable funding to support alternative lifestyle. It also gives the person an address of they wish to apply for a job.
I dont think its fair to say they refused I mean I guess sometimes that's what it is but no I don't think they should just be around "bothering" people but they are still people where do you want them to go live in the woods forever idk what to do abt this
No. But I do think they should be given certain unused areas. Places they can build tent cities that keeps overcrowding in high traffic areas. And dealt with by each state not the feds.
If they chose to be homeless and not be in a shelter or housing they should be able to sleep on the street but only in certain areas
Help should be readily available for the homeless should they ask for it. However, if the person/people do not want help it will not be given.
Homeless people that refuse to aid should be tested to see if they are a menace for citizens in public areas.
I dont believe they should sleep or encamp on public property if they’ve been offered shelter, but i also dont believe they should be seen as criminals for being on the street. They need help, and if there was a safer way to get them off the streets and into shelters Im for it.
We need to go back to more long-term psych facilities for people who need it. A lot of homeless who refuse shelters belong in psychiatric care.
Yes but national debt should not be dramatically increased to help those who refuse help Ineffectiveness of Punishment: Criminalizing homelessness often does not address the root causes and can exacerbate the problem by pushing individuals further into the margins of society.
Need for Compassionate Approaches: Many homeless individuals have complex needs, including mental health issues and substance use disorders. Approaches that prioritize understanding and support are often more effective.
Resource Allocation: Investing in punitive measures can divert resources away from effective solutions… Read more
Yes because I don't see how punishing/fining the homeless will somehow make them not homeless anymore
i believe that the government should provide more funding into housing for the homeless instead of investing into hostile architecture
It should be investigated on a case by case basis and we should fund public homeless case managers to work with individuals and families on the issues they are facing to become self sufficient. We could all learn more about what is happening to others in the world.
If they refused shelter or housing, no. but if they were unable to get access to shelter or housing, yes, provide with food, and necessities.
I dont exactly think that they should be able to sleep or make a camp on public property, it isnt the citizens fault that they are refusing available shelter so why should they have to deal with the fear of being mugged or their child becoming sick due to them.
@9WD4X4ZProgressive12mos12MO
If they refuse everything they should not sleep on public property because then they make the city look trashy look at NYC its a nice place but it looks trashy because of all the waste and drug addicts sleeping on the streets.
There should be more community programs created to assist these individuals on a case-by-case basis. There are those that could go out and assess the physical and mental condition of the homeless. Appropriate actions can be taken after a proper assessment. And also, if it's the privacy of a home or a business, then no they should not be allowed there. But if it's a park or Forest preserve, well, I think nobody owns the Earth and let them live primitively if they so choose until further assessments assistance can be provided.
yes, and make mental evaluations and resources available since lots of our homeless in the United States are veterans with ptsd.
I think the homeless should really go to a homeless center instead of sleeping outside or on public property.i wish they had a home.
No, but create social programs to help provide medical and mental resources along with jobs, food and other resources.
No, because they offered help but they refused so they wouldn't be out sleeping on the road in a public place
No, but add more government funds shelter with more opportunities for men with children and people with pets.
If the homeless individual isnt causing issues like harmful language or violence they shouldn't ve able to camp on public property. If the individual isn't causing harm they are fine to stay.
I think it depends on where the public property is. If it’s away from high traffic area where they could get hurt I don’t see why not. But if it’s near children then they should move to a different area
It depends on how unnecessarily cruel the shelter/housing people were, and whether or not they were discriminatory
No, have better shelters available and make the economy run smother so homelessness is not a problem.
Another complicated question is present. There are multiple scenarios in which the homeless are choosing the lesser of two evils. On the other hand it can end up in public areas looking less clean and healthy/save for others.
they only refuse because they do not get treated fairly and fear for their safety and would rather take their chances in public
@9VZTN9N12mos12MO
While it is okay for them to refuse care, the standing of them encamping public property isn't all that safe. There is no proper way to answer this question without counterdicting what you originally wanted.
I think that homeless people should have the right to gain the survival needs necessary for them to live, however, I don't think that they should be just given everything for free if they have the capability to work for what they need. For this to work, however, I think more businesses should be open to people who may not have a clear resume or access to proper education should be immediately turned down from places of work.
@9VZ4HQY12mos12MO
No, if you refused available shelter or housing, then why would you be allowed to sleep or encamp on public property?
i believe that the shelters are not always good and its sometimes safter out in the street. They should have the ability to encamp elsewhere, though i think there should be designated spots for this and not allow them just anywhere.
@9VX4N8812mos12MO
no, pero buscar alternativas para evitar molestias en parques publicos y de igual modo ayudar al cuidadano
This should be regulated but local government. There are areas that this could be more or less problematic.
They should be able to sleep off the roads and sidewalks and sleep off at the side so they don’t get hurt
No, and make it a criminal offense that requires a trial so that if the individual is mentally ill, they are institutionalized and receive care.
@9VV7P2NLibertarian 12mos12MO
No, they need to be moved to a sheltered facility along with anything they need like pets, food, or clothing.
Yes, but states should be able to designate some public property as non-encampment areas, while being required to keep a minimum amount of public property available for encampment.
@9VT7BRCIndependent12mos12MO
No, but reform the available shelters to make them more accessible and friendlier to the homeless. Allow pets in certain shelters, offer programs to help people stop taking drugs rather than force them to cold turkey addictive drugs, and overall make the living spaces more humane feeling. Public services should help these people work their way off the streets and into shelters suitable for them and while in the shelter, have them work towards finding a job or some form of paid work to help them no longer depend on the services of the shelter.
i think that there are some requirements if they want to be free like cant be doing illegal substances or making messes or disturbing
No, because then there is no way to tell if someone is being homeless on purpose to get free advantages.
No but there needs to be an increase in housing, food, and clothing programs as well as a huge increase in mental health and rehabilitation services for the Homeless populace
@9VQRHJ512mos12MO
instead of letting them refuse we relocate them to something like a trailer camp, we could have multiple around the area so if the feel the need to move they can.
I think more research needs to be done on our drug addiction and mental health that causes the majority of homelessness.
Make an area that is in the community that they can go to be off grid and they can tend to. Not public or private property but intended for people who have chosen to live off grid
It depends on where they are, if they are causing property damage or bothering anyone, or causing a disruption in the community
No, homeless people should be helped to find a job and begin supporting themselves, not encouraged to be homeless by allowing them to sleep on public property.
I think those who are homeless because they refuse available housing should not be allowed but those who are homeless because they have no available housing should be allowed to.
No, but use government subsidies and construct federal funded housing projects housing for maximum of two years for people with mental and physical health needs, also mandatory for addressing, for every homeless person.
well I it was refused I guess that opens up a new door. But I think that homeless people if they have to should be able able to sleep and get shelter where they can.
Yes, as long as they are not being a nuisance, like blocking entryways, bad smells, or public indecency.
I feel like the homeless people should have a specific area for providence and shelter which helps the neighborhood through any areas.
No because they could have done something to help them self by going to shelter or housing but since they have denied it, they have no reason to stay on public property.
depends where and the context. This is too broad there should be a designated public spot for homeless not just anywhere
I think this is not such a black & white issue. I do think the homeless should get assistance but in a way that would work best for everyone
if they had access to healthcare and still turned that down then yes, but if they only said no to overcrowding or because it was dangerous then they should be given another option.
I think they should be able to but I think as Americans we shouldn't be spending and letting illegal immigrants in while there are Americans that are homeless, there should be no homeless Americans while we are giving billions to Israel.
No, they shouldn’t but they should be provided care in shelters and more programs should be available for them.
I feel it to be dependent on the situation with the public property used and how the homeless individual sleeps or camps on it.
@9VBSBF41yr1Y
I mean at that point you don't want to help your self so you should be helped by being put in a temporary facility to help them get on your feet. You can just be lazy and do nothing.
I think if you just are sleeping with a sleeping bag hidden your fine but the tents and all are not ok
create a local space that is not housing or shelter specifically for those who choose to live outside and in public areas
if they weren't offered or denied shelter or housing they shouldn't get in trouble if they refused they should
@9V3N5561yr1Y
No, it wont be crime but physically forcing them to be in there because they cannot be out on the streets. It's absolutely terrible for them.
to an extent like not like other people's property but like parks and stuff like that yea and create more social programs to provide free food, clothing, and medicine
It honestly depends. Sometimes there isn't room and some shelters are too far so they aren't able to get necessary housing. So they should have the option to sleep/encamp on public property as a last resort.
Personally, I don't like the idea of having homeless people living on the streets. It makes cities look disgusting and uneducated due to the actions committed by homeless. But I also dislike the idea of them having no where to go and being forced to relocate else where. If there is a big homeless problem in one area, force them into shelters, or find an area where they can live (forced into one big group).
I mean no? Why would they voluntarily sleep or camp on public property when given the chance of housing.
redirect them to a homeless shelter for a bit and try to get them into the work force until they are stable enough to be on their own this also helps make sure they have jobs and that we'll have employees
If housing is refused there should be a place they are allowed to camp. Ones who want houses but not public shelters we could open abandoned houses for them
Yes id the homeless person WANTS help then help them but id they clearly seem that they DONT want help then you shouldn’t help them at all
If it’s keys to their own home and they deny it. No. If most shelter spaces where they don’t know the people, have been harmed in, can’t bring pets or family I understand why they “refuse” completely.
No, not on public property. Designated areas should be set aside for homeless individuals who choose to live a shelterless/houseless lifestyle.
@9TTW2YH1yr1Y
yes and no, if they deny the care and end up sleeping at a public park or something then yeah they should be removed from the area.
I don’t think that people should be living in a ally or anywhere like that you should be able to have a roof over you head with all the extra necessities.
In a secluded spot such as a bench, yes. But in the middle of a sidewalk or on the grass right in front of a structure/building, then no. However, I don't think the homeless population should be big enough to worry about this.
No but create enclosed areas for the encampments out of sight of the public and patrolled on a regular basis.
They should be allowed the right to as long as it doesn't disturb the peace of the public and not during a public event.
Both yes and no, I feel with the homeless people who roam around the streets, and sleep on public land shouldn't be forced to move somewhere, but I can also understand how that might make people feel unsafe with homeless people sleeping in the open unsure if there safe or not.
I think there should be a specific area that they can go to, not like a shelter but like a dedicated homeless camp in a secluded area in the city
I think so because it's public property and not private, and if they're not doing anything bad or damaging to buildings then it should be fine.
No, but government should provide areas for homeless to have their basic needs met for individuals that do not wish to be directly in shelters. These area should still be held to a cleanliness standard with government workers cleaning up the areas.
No, homeless people can pose a danger, we should implement a policy that enforces and encourages the avaliable shelter options around their area.
I think yes and supply some but not help other homeless people that do drugs or don’t want to get back on there feet and work etc.
I do not want to remove them from where they feel comfortable, even though I don't think that should be camping on properties. It should not be a criminal offense.
There's alot of problems with shelters and I think those should be fixed before we allow homeless people to go back to them
since they've denied help, they should still encamp but somewhere further from the main city or something similar like that
I think we could use them for science and sell organs that are useful to people that have a good mind set like not consistently buying beer or cigarettes and ect.
If the available housing is safe and actually livable and there is plenty of room for them. It should be punished for not taking the help as it would be loitering in the public's space.
I believe if they refused all help they shouldn't be able to sleep wherever they want but in the case of the homeless who can't get help it's ok for them to sleep wherever they are comfortable.
No, if they are only offered group living accommodations or that would not work for them (having a pet that isn’t allowed at the shelter or having to split up a family) there has to be flexibility in these cases
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
