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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

No. Make it a criminal offence. If they are homeless because of severe drug addiction and/or mental illness, they should be committed to long-term inpatient treatment instead.

No, but but only after sufficient alternative resources can be provided as options and wrap around social services are provided in a consistent and equitable manner

homeless should be allowed to stay only in certain areas, where they won't interfere with the general public. These areas should be regulated by police.

Separate parks and playgrounds/schools. Trauma treatment should be offered and people cared for as individuals.

Yes, but with limitations. Parks and recreational areas used by kids and families should not be available for encampments.

Yes, but only because the current shelter being offered is often unsafe and unsanitary, particularly for women and vulnerable individuals

No, but create safe areas for them to live in that provides and are that also isn’t decreasing the beauty of another area.

Yes, as long as they're not harmful.

I don’t have an opinion on this matter

Why would they refuse housing! Stupid worded question

No because they should be offered better spaces for shelter to access free food, clothing and medicine

Yes, as long as they are respectful and treat the property well (don't vandalize, steal/smash, etc.) because no matter how many houses we build, there is always some people who won't be able to live in them because of underlying circumstances, so giving them access to public washrooms, as well as a space to sleep/eat is in the community's interest for safety of everyone.

We need a “Housing First policy” based on the one Finland has.

Re-open mental asylums

Yes, and there could be many valid reasons as to why they refuse the housing in the first place, as there are issues of harassment, sexual assault, racism, safety, and other numerous reasons as to why someone might reject these and choose to live on the street. We need to do this, because public buildings often have amenities that the public can use (washrooms, etc.) and security cameras so if something does happen, we have a record of it and are able to report it to the police, there is also usually adequate lighting, which helps keep people safe, and people who wish to do harm think twice…  Read more as they are visible. Making it harder to find a place to sleep only hurts our most vulnerable, and puts the problem where we can't see it, such as out on Forest Service Roads, or underneath bridges. The only thing that I would add though, is that it's also the responsibility of those who are sleeping there to treat others with respect, don't harass/intimidate or threaten others, and don't leave a mess behind with needles or other garbage that someone could step on/has to pick up.

kill them or kick them out

Send them up to rehabilitation sites, where they are dried out (addiction wise), trained/educated as skilled workers (or other areas depending on background). After that they are offered employment in various sectors and debt consolidation and stabilization. From bum to valued member of society

I would say yes. In a perfect world, the homeless would be able to access housing and other important amenities that would allow them to be able to get back on their feet. That is not the case, as many people often don't want the services that would help people in their own backyard, as they have concerns relating to safety, and other issues such as property value (which in this time period, with everything going up in price, is reasonable.) Shelters often have requirements/other issues that can dissuade people from going there (safety) so the best third option that we can allow is public property, as public property often has available amenities such as washrooms/drinking water that people need.

If homeless individuals are refusing available resources, then the government should be taking a long hard look at those resources and figuring out why. More and better resources need to be made available.

Yes, because we don't entirely know the reasons why they could've refused shelter. It could be because maybe they feel unsafe in that environment, and have had multiple incidents, so while it may be of inconvenience, it's necessary as public property often has necessities (bathrooms, etc) that the homeless need.

Yes, until we create better shelter and housing

Yes, because we might not always have the ability to actively be able to care for everyone.

Yes, but they should have to stay in a certain section of town

No, but only because they refused shelter or housing.

Many homeless people refuse available shelter due to abuse suffered inside such facilities. They should be free to encamp in wooded parks and unobtrusive public areas.

People will be people lack of context prevents me from correctly answering

No. But we need to drastically increase spending and education and public housing so that these people won’t ever be denied

yes, only disruptively

It entirely depends on the quality of the shelter provided. There are plenty of abusive shelters.

yes as long as they aren't destroying the property

No, but create more social programs to help those experiencing homelessness.

Yes, only if it is not interrupting businesses and walkways.

Yes but also create more accepting programs for these people, they need to be treated like people rather than animals

I think crown land is free game outside of city limits but also if shelter within city limits are unavailable they shouldn’t be banned from camping in city limits

Yes, encampment should be allowed in designated areas of each city, provided with protection and access to needed resources (food, clothing, and medicine)

no but create more social programs to provide free food, clothing, and medicine

Yes but it depends on where it is

Improve shelters

Yes, but only if there is proper care of the public property. Be there from from sundown to sunrise. No garbage/needles left around and the residents are treated with respect and public property can still be used by all.