Anti-homeless spikes:Sleeping rough opened my eyes to the city’s barbed cruelty

"Local authorities do not have to provide housing for all homeless people. Instead, they have a duty to house 'statutory' homeless people and, every year, tens of thousands of people apply to their local authority for homelessness assistance.

"To be legally defined as homeless you must either lack a secure place in which you are entitled to live or not reasonably be able to stay in your current accommodation. However, in order for your local authority to have a duty to find you housing, there are further strict criteria that you have to meet. The housing a local authority provides to households who meet these criteria, mainly families with children, may initially be temporary accommodation.

"If you don't have dependent children (known as ‘single homelessness') and you are not deemed to be more vulnerable than other homeless people, you probably won't be entitled to housing."

So where then?

1) accept that homeless people will sleep on property you developed or support with your taxes, and get over it

2) move them to someone else's property or some other city so it's someone else's problem

3[a]) put them in jail or 3[b]) expand and improve public shelters, thus costing even more of your tax money

4) kill them, which is obviously not really an option

Am I missing something? Do you have any other ideas?

> Up to a third of homeless young people turned away when they seek help from their local council, research reveals

Young people here means 16-24 year olds.

Well, when you put it like that, I'm sure the homeless would understand. Why not go and tell them to their faces? I'm sure they've never considered any alternative options at all.