The fact is, we are in the business of creating humans who don't necessarily want to have ever started existing.
When we do that, we owe a debt to provide some place for them in the world we unfairly created them in. Some people are more erosive on the infrastructure than others, but we don't just lose the obligation we earned as a society by our policies that lead to such people existing simply because they are a bit hard to provide such infrastructure.
We are clever and capable as a species, clever and capable enough to provide more durable accommodations to those who are so erosive. In fact, the very act of doing so teaches us a great deal as a society. We have the responsibility to provide such spaces, and to provide them at a scale in densely populated areas such that they can handle the existence of such erosive persons, lest they erode the literal surfaces of places that are much harder to keep clean and to repair. It's easier to sweep concrete than it is to sweep dirt.
I would hope we can make it so that such persons will be a very small minority, to minimize the need for such durable accommodations. It is neither difficult or even particularly onerous to provide some houses in more rural communities for those teens who need support after high school for whatever reason. Ideally, by catching people who would otherwise fall through such cracks, we would avert the outcome wherein they become such erosive misanthropes in the first place.
I get that a lot of people resent the existence of people who they push to the margins. I expect if fewer people sought to marginalize others beyond the marginalization those people seek for themselves, there would be fewer people on the margins of society, and they would be further from "going over the edge". This is certainly NOT accomplished by depriving people of the existence of otherwise unused land, nor is it accomplished by destroying what little stuff they have, nor is it accomplished by being shitty about drugs, alcohol, or pets belonging to those people.
If we wish to bring people in from the margins, it means making a place for them closer to the fire, even if those people are "strange" or "lazy" or "high".
Still it strikes me that some people are more concerned with the dangers they perceive from those who don't even have a car rather than the pedophile criminal rapist grifters.
Scormbird is right to question why so much attention, effort, and energy is being extended on nickel and dime bullshit, and not directed at real and substantive robberies. The law is far more able to do something about companies that lie to consumers, against advertisers who harass people in their homes, and against those who scam the elderly, by expecting those who provide communications services and businesses to be beholden to some manner of oversight.
The reason it does not is often down to interference and obstruction by those who most loudly proclaim that homeless people are the problem.
The thing is, I do recognize that homeless people can in some ways end up being a problem. Some of the most stressful or weird moments of my life were had due to the momentary presence of a homeless person. Still, I was in no immediate danger in those situations, and I recognize that much more dangerous situations in my life were brought by people who do have homes, including all of the most expensive problems.
I also recognize that the easiest way to minimize such problems is to make sure people have options so as to never become chronically "homeless" in the first place, and to quit trying to make life a competition against each other than working alongside one another.
