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

No, but we should assess the current shelters and housing to see why they may be refusing to use them.

No, we fund these welfare programs for their benefit and if they choose not to accept thats their problem

No, however creating alternative living solutions or proper areas outside of the “main areas” of denser populations/towns.

Homeless shelters need drastic expansion and improvement, and hostile architecture should be banned.

Don’t want them on my private place. I have had enough of feeling unsafe in my community and home. Not fair as a tax paying citizen that I have no rights anymore for my safety

We need to call it what it is: MENTAL HEALTH BREAKDOWN. These people need psych wards. They need to be helped. They need to know that they are wanted, loved, cared for. Not societies throw always.

If shelters are deemed safe and there is room they should not be allowed to encamp on public property.

This is a ridiculous question. The real issue is providing housing - acceptable housing - for everyone. It's not black and white. No one wants to be in an encampment and nobody wants them to have to be there.

yes but not in areas with lots of people, kids ect they should be in the woods out of the city parks

Any drug addicted homeless people should be forced into treatment facilities. Homeless people without addiction issues should recieve help.

Metro stations that have space should accommodate 2 or 3 beds for the homeless and give them access to free public transportation

Yes. Often they are disallowed at shelters because they will not give up pets or belongings. We need more understanding into their lives before we judge.

If the governement finds a way to tackle the true causes of homelessness, then yes. We should aim to have less homeless people

They shouldn’t be denied in the first place. There needs to be a better plan put into place for homeless people so they’re not suffering outside and they’re receiving the support they need to recover

No, those who refuse shelters do so for a very good reason. We need to get rid of shelters and instead implement housing programs that scatter homeless people and integrate them into society so one or two apartments in a normal everyday apartment type of thing. This is the far safer solution, as well as putting those in medical distress into appropriate medical facilities.

if they are no harm or threat to the public then it's whatever. however if they make a mess to public land they should be penalized like any citizen

It shouldn't be an option. All Canadians regardless of their status should have access to individual, safe and secure accommodations.

yes i do think even if they been offered some sort of living place if they decline it i dont see the problem with them going back into public but i do think if you gave them a offer and they decline they dont get another 1

No but provide much safer housing and shelters so that homeless individuals feel safer to choose these options

I would like to know why they would refuse. Seems like there's more to the story than you guys are implying with such a question...

Create a federal/provincial/municipal moratorium of the root causes (addiction, mental health) of the individual's decision and then provide solutions to better help the individual

Gov't should provide easily accessed safe area where currently homeless people can stay, and feel safe without being forced into community shelters where they don't feel safe, or into traditional housing where they aren't familiar

I know it is harsh but in case they are being turned away for substance abuse or criminal activity or bad behavior they should not receive help. But if they have mental illness they should have all the support

No, they shouldn't be able to encamp in public parks, but if they want to set up camps in the bush that isn't used by the public that should be okay. And create more social programs to provide free food, clothing, and medicine

Yes, often the available shelter is dangerous and degrading and housing is over regulated by government control and doesn't allow them to live independently

homeless individuals should have access to shelter and services, but public property encampments may require solutions that balance public safety with the need for resources and care.

Yes, and they should be offered adequate shelter and housing (housing that any non homeless person would live in) before being considered as having ‘refused’.

No, but create more social programs and shelters that are social safety nets to provide free food, clothing, and medicine

Yes they should be allowed, but make it easier for support so they can recover from whatever hardship is making them feel this way.

Provinces and Cities should have encampment areas for homeless that choose not to stay in available shelter. People at the encampments must keep the area as clean as possible

If they arent creating permanent encampments or disrupting other individuals from using public property then it shouldn't be an issue.

they should be allowed in nature encampments, but around public places no. the people need housing either way

Yes, but criminal activities due to drug abuse and mental issues should be approached differently and they should be sent for therapy/rehabilitation instead of prison and sent back into the public.

It depends, if they are taking space and damaging property, then no, but if they are leaving people be and aren't making a mess, then yes.

Yes but not long term, if it becomes a long term issue then more social programs and other programs and housing needs to be provided and built asap

From what I've read, this refusal may be out of concern for their safety as some shelters (not all) are said to be worse conditions than the streets, from theft, sickness, uncleanliness.

The homeless or those with no housing should be provided with temporary emergency funds, resources for job acceptances or exceptions, including the fact that in regards to housing they should be provided a home that can last them for 5-6 years until they are financially stable. When 5-6 years is up were expected to check on their financial status and situation, and do background checks to ensure their safety, health made will be provided and social programs are restricted meaning the government will take care of their well being for the mean time without restrictive forms. They will immediate…  Read morely be admitted for support systems including education to allow them to gain jobs and better outcome. For those who are disabled, will get early benefits and access to long term healthcare benefits and services of income protection from the government but this is only applying to those with disabilities. Those that were evicted from their homes or going through abuse will have their 5-6 year support from the government that gives the highest standard of living and care so that they can be well off on their own after gaining their own independence. Some will be put into military service for contribution to the country and this way we can protect the borders in the country and become less dependent on immigration depending on the circumstance of the province. Other than that all provinces must follow our criteria of ensuring safety, security and stabilized infrastructure for those who are in need. This strictly only applies to Canadian citizens. Permanent residence or immigrants that are allowed into the country will need to obtain Citizenship to gain access of other benefits. But services are provided at their level in a different approach. Financial services are available but no free education or security until they go through rigorous background checks. Furthermore, they need to show strong proof of income support and should be required to release job acceptance offers and papers before proceeding to enter the country and pr

No, and create more social programs to provide basic free food and essential medicine. Enforce the laws that already exist.

If there is adequate support for housing then nobody needs to camp anywhere. People refuse because the shelters are unsafe.

I think the issue actually stems from crime and drug/other issues in shelters shelter should by law be dry places from illegal substances,furthermore they should be given more power by the goverment to bar certain unsavory types from shelters

No they should be given the support needed to get healthy and find self worth if not in employment as it doesn't suit everyone then in a community supported role.

It depends where. I accept the Trinity Bellwoods encampment for example, it’s sad but probably safer than shelters.

Dedicate a undeveloped space for these individuals and create social programs for food, clothing and medical

Instead adopt finish model of giving apartment to them and then help them get a job through welfare. If they are insane put them In a mental asylum.

No, but the government should be e ensuring they have safer and more private shelters to go to that also help support addiction and mental health issue that can be developed from being homeless

More information is needed to understand why they refused the available housing or shelter and address those problem

No, and repeat offenders are subject to mandatory rehabilitation. Whether for drug use or to simply land a job

How could one possibly know that a homeless individual that is sleeping on public property refused shelter?

Yes, but only in designated areas, and provide access to safely administer drugs in the case of addiction.

Yes but only for short terms and with health and safety guidelines. After the short term, they, with government assistance, must find other solutions.

Yes, but only in designated spaces between certain hours, and which are monitored for illegal activities and continuously cleaned for public use.

No, but create more access to mental health and other supports in general to reduce risk factors throughout all life stages

No, but an investigation should follow regarding why the individual refused that/those specific shelter/housing option(s)

No, but they should be given better options where they can be safe and have privacy and basic human rights.

No, more shelters need to be in place with higher levels of security to address security and safety concerns that may cause some to refuse shelter

Try to solve the root problem of homelessness as well as support them and rehabilitating them through programs

A place should be created for their tents. With access to water and bathrooms. Just like a campground but with social programs to help them out.

they should be provided for, ie implementing toothless not homeless, free community gardens, medicine, clothes, and more comfortable shelters or housing to prevent the encampment of public property.

They shouldnt be allowed however be left with a few warnings and seek mental help and refered to a shelter

No, we just need to give more help but also yes because they need to sleep somewhere as long as it’s regulated

This is a loaded question, a lot of shelters are dangerous, and require one to have no drugs on them. It's incredibly difficult to just stop taking them, so these people have refused housing because they had to. We need better and more accessable mental health care

No not at all because at that point their just choosing to be homeless and if they want to be they can go live in the woods instead of sleeping on streets like bums because at that point its a waste of space yes they are people but if they’re choosing not to be a productive person in society then they shouldn’t be apart of society at all

There were homeless people sleeping near our apartment building and causing damage to the property and were harassing peope. This made feel unsafe to leave...

make it a crime that once in custody they do a psychological test and determine if they need to go to the mental hospital

Yes, but the government should provide places for them to reside specifically, and provide food, clothing, and medicine.

If they refused a house the no they shouldn't be allowed to but if they refused a shelter then yes because shelters can often be dangerous

Yes and No because I don't think that they should stay on public property but I don't think they should be punished for it just develop more programs to assist people without houseing

Yes, and stop planting useless vegetation, all public property should be a source of food, not just beauty.

They should be alowed but only for a small amout of days and then if they do not go to a shelter then they cannot sleep on a public place or bench

Yes, but there is no such thing as homelessness, and also reknowledge the fact of personal property and public property.

Yes, but not in parks or other public areas where it would interfere with public use, and increase funding for supportive housing, affordable housing and social and mental health services.

Stop making them feel like a burden. Create those programs but stop making them feel like it's their fault. The government has made homeless an all time high. They need to start being held accountable.

More work should be done to deal with the homeless issue, not a simple answer, but not accepting assistance shouldn’t be an option.

Yes, but establish areas that will be safe for the homeless population to have their encampments, & enact more social programs to provide food, clothing, & medicine.

Yes, create more camps around the country and offer public transportation to move them there. It should be illegal in cities as they could be potentially dangerous.

Groups need to be formed that consider the safety of the individual and the public, and make judgements accordingly after deep scrutiny.