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

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

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.

Yes, have effective social programs to provide cheap food, clothing, and medicine. But make it so that they adapt to their new housing.

Yes, and fund more reliable programs so people will be encouraged to seek assistance rather than avoid the system entirely

No, but we should try to find alternative. Typically homeless people have mental health issues or addiction issues.

Yes however they can't be interfering with space where people have to walk or get through.

Only if it is out of sight of the general public

No, but create more social programs to provide safe shelter, food, and long term housing.

i think they should be able to sleep wherever is not disturbing everyone else.

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.

Only if employed

No, but they should add more and improved homeless shelters

Yes, but create a program to link homeless people to the utilities they need to find jobs and shelter.

Yes, but as long as they do not cause any issues

Yes, within designated areas

Regardless, should be decided by the state.

Individuals have a right to traverse and loiter on public property, regardless of whether they are homeless or not, so long as they are not damaging property or otherwise depriving the rest of the public of their ability to enjoy those spaces safely. Large groups of people creating "pop-up villages" within a space not designed and designated for the purpose create a hazard for those living there, deprive the rest of the general public of its use of the property, and can create an undue and unintended burden on surrounding infrastructure. I support the rights of individuals to traverse and loiter as well as the rights of local governments to protect public assets and ensure public safety.

yes, as long as it is not disturbing anyone or anything.

it really depends on whats going on and how they are acting

Only if there was reason for them to not want to stay the shelter

Yes, as long as they are not disturbing the peace or making a scene.

It all depends on the situation, if they are good people really trying to make themselves better then by all means stay where you want. But if they are standing on the corner trying to get drug money then no.

They should be able to live on the side of the road, but not in public places.

Yes, but not public property within city limits.

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 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.

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