Should homeless individuals, that have refused available shelter or housing, be allowed to sleep or encamp on public property?

No

Yes

No, and make it a criminal offense

offer a program that rehabilitates them while also providing basic needs and work opportunities.

No. We need to create homes for them.

No, but the government should create programs that help these homeless individuals access job opportunities near their houses.

yes but add opportunities like jobs

No, make it a forceful act of giving them shelter and still provide adequate rights that wouldn't make them feel suffocated or restricted.

mixed cause ive seen californian shelters more of concentration camp less of actual home

No, homeless individuals are not allowed to sleep nor encamp on public property since they chose to refuse available shelter or housing that was offered to them.

We should convince them more to live in available shelter/housing provided by the government. In a good manner of course, not threatening them. This is for their own good and safety. Also, for a clean and organized society.

Give homeless individuals livelihood opportunity and seminars and compel them to accept the housing or shelter

Give the proper housing

No, must be give and provide proper housing to them

no, i will give proper housing to them

No, but construct public-operated or public-funded homeless shelters open to all.

No but give them social programs to ensure their livelihood, food and give them an actual relocation area where jobs are easily available.

Government needs to give homeless people a shelter.

No, however, the government should invest on social programs to provide free food, clothing, and medicine. The government must find a way to relocate homeless individuals.

No, instead offer them a livelihood so that they can make an income for their living.

Yes, but not for too long, it'll be temporary until they find jobs and house to rent and income to survive. We can still make programs for them and donations

No, but shelters and housing should be built where there is economic activity instead of the outskirts.

It's ruthless to send them to jail but I don't think they should sleep on public property, If it's free shelter and food then they should take it. It gives them a better second chance so they can get their life back on track.

Why do you think someone might choose the insecurity of the streets over the security of a shelter, and what does that decision reveal about shelter systems?

Only if that place does not have scheduled hours

Yes, because some of them might have refused because how they didn't like how the shelter or house is.

What's the importance of having a personal space to you, and how does that influence your view on individuals seeking such space in public areas?

How might a community's approach to homelessness reflect its values, and what would you suggest as an ideal solution for all parties involved?

It depends on how close the public property is to a residential home or neighborhood.

How can society balance compassion for those without homes with the interests of the community at large, especially regarding public property usage?

What responsibilities do we have to ensure the safety and dignity of all individuals in our neighborhoods, including those who prefer to stay on public land?

No, and those using drugs should be beaten up.

Imagine being given housing options that didn't meet your needs; how would you want communities to support you in a way that respected your choices?

It should be up to the owner of the property

No, but should not be made a crime

To a Certain Extent

Yes, but if they continuously refuse the help given, then there should be no need to force it upon them (unless they're mentally unstable)

yes, even though they refused it, they should be limited to where they can stay. They should not be able to stay anywhere.

Should be decided on by county law

it’s up to the people i guess

There should be more programs to benefit homeless Americans and create free housing for these individuals.

Yes, but designated areas. Increase social programs for food, clothing and medicine and do not allow panhandling. Give people the resources they need to get back on their feet but don't allow panhandling to be a way of life.

Yes, but the location should to be monitored as well as a source of mental health and/or asocial service program (?) to follow-up with them.

No, but if they are refusing available shelters, then we should find out why so we can improve them.

No, and make it a criminal offense to sleep or encamp on government property

yes, but efforts to end homelessness should be stronger, and homless facilities should be more inclusive and beneficial

Yes, as long as the owner of the public property consents and the homeless person isn’t harming others.

Only if employed

They should not but don't make it a criminal offense.

Yes as along as they are disrupting the public by being violent

Yes, we can only offer, we can not force them to take help that they do not want.

In your opinion, should comfort and personal preference play a role in whether people without homes can use public spaces for encampment?

Depends on what kind of public property. Camps of over 10 people shouldn't be allowed.

Sometimes whether if the owner of the property is ok with it, but they should at least have a place to stay at.

Yes, but only if the owners signed something allowing for the homeless to encamp on their property, as long as they don't hurt or bother anybody. And make sure they have access to food, water, basic necessities, and shelter if they need it.

Yes, but only if the owners signed something allowing for the homeless to encamp on their property, as long as they don't hurt or bother anybody. Also, make sure they have access to any basic necessities such as food, water, clothing, and shelter if they need it.

Yes because where are homeless people supposed to sleep when shelters and jails are overcrowded?

Each major city needs a designated fenced open air camping area, with showers and bathrooms and a security guard. Las Vegas has one.

No, I think that they should get medical help and work on their problems.

No, because they refused the available shelter or housing in the first place

I think its ok to a certain extent but should be put amount allowed on certain properties

These individuals should be moved toward housing and integrated into society again, only then should they receive public assistance due to cooperation and the interest to reform and improve.

Yes, however it should be decided within the town government which public properties can be occupied at which ours of the day or night. Example: Some parks near peoples houses and businesses shouldn't allow people to be there from 11pm-4am.

If you had no home and didn't feel safe at available shelters, where would you go, and why might public property seem like the only option?

Yes, but only if the owners signed something allowing for the homeless to encamp on their property, as long as they don't hurt or bother anybody. Make sure they have access to food, water, basic necessities, and shelter if they need it.

Yes, but only if the owners signed something allowing for the homeless to encamp on their property, as long as they don't hurt or bother anybody. Also, create more social programs to provide basic necessities such as food, water, clothing, and shelter if they need it.

Yes, if they can do so without obstructing others' use thereof, because most homeless shelter/housing comes with strings attached.

Yes, only if the homeless individuals are allowed to loiter.

How might your perception of public spaces change if you saw someone sleeping there, and what does that say about society's collective space?

Have you ever seen someone living in a public space, and what was your first reaction to that situation?

No, but create more social programs to provide free food, clothing and medicine as well as better and safer shelters as current are not at all "safe" spaces, which is why many refuse to stay.

We shouldn't allow it, but instead highly encourage them going to shelter and housing.

It should depend on local policies

Do you think removing encampments makes homelessness less visible but does nothing to solve the issue, or do you think it helps the community? Why?

How do you feel public spaces should be shared among people with different needs, including those seeking shelter?

If you were living in an encampment, what daily challenges do you think you would face that others might not realize?

Do you believe cities should provide designated areas for encampments instead of moving people around, and why or why not?

If a homeless encampment existed near your home or school, how would you feel about it, and why?

No but they should be persuaded into living there.

Yes: it's public property. They can't be forced to leave without committing a crime.

I feel as if , we as a goverment made more programs and made it easier for them to get section 8 and employment then they wouldnt have to sleep outside. The shelters are gross and infested , women often get assulted in these shelters too.

Create housing developments, i.e. mobile home "villages", with Social Services on site.

No, but do not make it a felony

How does your view of public safety tie in with the idea that some may need to use public spaces as temporary shelter?

i believe they should make shelter more save for the homeless and they shouldn't be able to sleep or encamp on public property

I don't really have a stance on this.

I was homeless for 2-1/2 years in NJ and it was horrible. I slept in my car in the parking lot of a hotel. I had to make sure I parked in a dark spot to avoid notice by staff. Yes, but not for those that refuse shelter. I was afforded such shelter. I worked for the government and wasn't allowed to stay in the building after punching out because they thought I was stealing money, thinking I didn't punch out. So, if the homeless person has no available resource available to them, they should be allowed to sleep wherever they feel safe.

If you were in a situation where you lost your home, what kind of support would you hope to receive from the community?

If they aren't creating a disturbance to others, actively engage in improving or maintaining the property, then I don't see an issue with their presence.

Yes, but make the options readily available to them if they decide not to or change their minds.

create programs that allow them to get help to better themselves

Yes but only on public property set aside for that purpose. It should not be allowed if it is impacting the publics ability to use the property for its intended use.

No but there should be other areas like parks for those types of people and more social programs to provide more services for them.

they should be allowed on public property if everyone else is

yes as long as they dont distrub or mess with anything on the property,it depends.

No, it will increase our crime rates if we do so

Yes, if they don't want to accept our help, we should leave them alone

Yes, but if they are creating an enviornment that endangers public health or safety, they should be removed.

Reflect on a time you felt out of place; how would you feel if you were asked to move just because you were trying to find a resting space?