Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political party:
@9C5V47X2yrs2Y
No pero hay que facilitarles alternativas al Refugio y que no estén a la Intemperie
@8XPQ9J2Ciudadanos3yrs3Y
Yes, but not allowing them to sleep in rich-important areas
@9CW9V5LCiudadanos1yr1Y
Los que no lo quieran que se apañen
@9CS2ZZ71yr1Y
Si es la unica opcion que tienen creo que se les deberia dejar vivir en propiedad publica y ayudarlos a conseguir una estabilidad, en el caso de que sean molestos o violentos o con varias detenciones por escándalo publico, en ese caso se deberian tomar medidas y no dejar que sigan viviendo en la calle y formando mas escándalo
@9CPHQRN1yr1Y
No, this should be discouraged
@9C9KD5S2yrs2Y
No but provide suitable places for these victims to sleep safely and with the basics covered
@9C7RZ6X2yrs2Y
Yes, unless they commit a criminal offense
They should be euthanised
@97S7NP72yrs2Y
No, and make them do community service
@8ZQ36RD3yrs3Y
If the available shelter is adequate
@928JWTG3yrs3Y
Only if that place does not have scheduled hours
Deleted3yrs3Y
No, and those using drugs should be beaten up.
@8ZPLVV43yrs3Y
Yes, because some of them might have refused because how they didn't like how the shelter or house is.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@9229SCK3yrs3Y
There should be more programs to benefit homeless Americans and create free housing for these individuals.
@8ZPLW223yrs3Y
@8YMZ7Y33yrs3Y
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)
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@8XR79YY3yrs3Y
Depends on what kind of public property. Camps of over 10 people shouldn't be allowed.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@93LVQCY3yrs3Y
It depends on how close the public property is to a residential home or neighborhood.
@92PWWFR3yrs3Y
They should be moved where they do not disturb the public.
@92MGFQ53yrs3Y
No, but should not be made a crime
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Deleted3yrs3Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@8YYWJR73yrs3Y
I don't really have a stance on this.
Deleted3yrs3Y
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.
@92YT9BX3yrs3Y
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.
@92YX7Z93yrs3Y
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.
@8YZCPT73yrs3Y
Yes, we can only offer, we can not force them to take help that they do not want.
Deleted2yrs2Y
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.
@92ZLLSS3yrs3Y
it’s up to the people i guess
@8YRTGKL3yrs3Y
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.
@93GLTSM3yrs3Y
yes, even though they refused it, they should be limited to where they can stay. They should not be able to stay anywhere.
@8YR4P6T3yrs3Y
No, and make it a criminal offense to sleep or encamp on government property
@8VGD9NG2yrs2Y
It should be up to the owner of the property
@93ZQDBJ2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as the owner of the public property consents and the homeless person isn’t harming others.
@8YRQH433yrs3Y
They should not but don't make it a criminal offense.
@3DSBJC33yrs3Y
Yes as along as they are disrupting the public by being violent
@9334YP33yrs3Y
Yes, if they can do so without obstructing others' use thereof, because most homeless shelter/housing comes with strings attached.
@8ZYJSH73yrs3Y
No, but do not make it a felony
@8Z9R7P23yrs3Y
Yes, only if the homeless individuals are allowed to loiter.
Deleted3yrs3Y
Sometimes whether if the owner of the property is ok with it, but they should at least have a place to stay at.
Deleted3yrs3Y
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.
Deleted3yrs3Y
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.
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes because where are homeless people supposed to sleep when shelters and jails are overcrowded?
@TexasShawtie3yrs3Y
Each major city needs a designated fenced open air camping area, with showers and bathrooms and a security guard. Las Vegas has one.
@8Z6N2BS3yrs3Y
No, I think that they should get medical help and work on their problems.
@8ZD3CWX3yrs3Y
No, because they refused the available shelter or housing in the first place
@8ZFTM9M3yrs3Y
I think its ok to a certain extent but should be put amount allowed on certain properties
@32LNXXJ2yrs2Y
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.
@4ST2ZSS3yrs3Y
As long as they don't get in other peoples way.
@8ZD5PH23yrs3Y
We shouldn't allow it, but instead highly encourage them going to shelter and housing.
@929HNZ43yrs3Y
i think that the government should have a designated spot for them so there not all over the city
@49VGR683yrs3Y
Yes: it's public property. They can't be forced to leave without committing a crime.
@92QDC3B3yrs3Y
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.
@8Y7MTL73yrs3Y
Yes, but make the options readily available to them if they decide not to or change their minds.
@3VSVGRS3yrs3Y
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.
@8ZGPKM93yrs3Y
they should be allowed on public property if everyone else is
@92XJ4C43yrs3Y
It should depend on local policies
@ThomasJj883yrs3Y
No, not if they refused help.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
@8XYNZJS3yrs3Y
No but they should be persuaded into living there.
@8ZRWKGP3yrs3Y
Create housing developments, i.e. mobile home "villages", with Social Services on site.
@vacheesehead3yrs3Y
Yes, but if they are creating an enviornment that endangers public health or safety, they should be removed.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
@929HNJJ3yrs3Y
i believe they should make shelter more save for the homeless and they shouldn't be able to sleep or encamp on public property
@8Y6C6PL3yrs3Y
Should be decided on by county law
@8XT5R4B3yrs3Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
@92MDVFR3yrs3Y
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.
@9299BY53yrs3Y
No, but if they are refusing available shelters, then we should find out why so we can improve them.
@95S7WDY2yrs2Y
create programs that allow them to get help to better themselves
@8KZL6N53yrs3Y
No but there should be other areas like parks for those types of people and more social programs to provide more services for them.
@929HNJR3yrs3Y
yes, but efforts to end homelessness should be stronger, and homless facilities should be more inclusive and beneficial
@92YTT7Y3yrs3Y
yes as long as they dont distrub or mess with anything on the property,it depends.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@8VC2Q883yrs3Y
No, it will increase our crime rates if we do so
@8VC2Q883yrs3Y
Yes, if they don't want to accept our help, we should leave them alone
@7G3G2W33yrs3Y
If they have no other option, yes.
@TheRamFlores3yrs3Y
No, because every human being needs some sort of shelter and public spaces do not provide that, a hybrid project between the city and the homeless could be the answer to this issue.
@6VWJ8PP3yrs3Y
No, but create more social programs for group homes and free food, clothing, medicine
@92NPZZ33yrs3Y
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.