Maybe we need to design our cities and public places in a way that they would be approachable for people living outside?
Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?
Maybe we need to design our cities and public places in a way that they would be approachable for people living outside?
Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?
Because we aren't cavemen anymore.
And a tent is a home, just a shabby, crappy, small one.
>Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?
Because people also need to eat and poop and shower somewhere, and be protected from the elements, and once you incorporate all that, you get a hostel/shelter.
I'll take your comment as an opportunity to say this:
Yes, we absolutely should have more infrastructure for the homeless.
Let's have public baths, public toilets, storage facilities, communal kitchens perhaps. Internet access (libraries do that, but that shouldn't be the only place).
Travelers would appreciate many of these as well.
If we could accept the fact that some people want to live on the streets, we would be able to make their life much easier and better without imposing a certain philosophy on how they should be living.
There are many people for which the definition of camping specifically excludes those things.
If people don't want to be homeless, we should do everything in our power to help them get into housing, sustainably. But if they do? No thanks, do that somewhere else, where the land can be reasonably and cost-effectively set up to support that. One of the most expensive, highly-regulated real estate markets in the US is not that place.
It's a moving target and it should be moving in a direction of achieving the best outcome for everyone, regardless if they're investment bankers or heroin addicts.
People thinking like you have been trying to stop progress since we got down from the trees. It's this ridiculous idea that how things are now is something that has to be kept and preserved.
It is a disservice to humanity - those ideas never survive history test, just cause better future for everyone to come later than it could.
Wait, aren't you the one arguing people should move back up into the trees? Well, not even the trees, you are just arguing they should live on the ground, and even our primitive primate ancestors weren't stupid enough to want to do that.
Because we're not animals, and have lived in at least caves since 10.000 years or more...
Also because it's 2019, and there's no excuse.
Maybe you could try some living in "camping spots in cities" in winter, for example?
/adding to the parent sarcasm
The UK and Ireland have the "traveller" community. They are basically non-Roma gypsies, the descendants of nomadic Irish tinkers. Even they do not live in tents. They live in caravans. A few still have the traditional wooden painted horse-drawn ones, although generally those only appear for special occasions like funerals. Mostly it's modern caravans and motorhomes.
There used to be fields provided for them on the edge of towns, but the inevitable social conflicts have caused those to be reduced to almost no provision.
However, homeless people are not considered as population, they're considered as aberration. If we consider them as just another population we need to support with public services, maybe every neighborhood would have facilities for homeless population, like you have facilities for pets owners, parents, as you have parks, bike trails, etc.
Shelters are there. And in shelters they get all they need. How is this different from a campground? The only difference you are talking about is that in campings they would have a tent instead of a roof, unless I am missing something. Homeless people don't want to go in. They don't want to give up drugs. How do you think that providing a "camping" playground would solve the problems?
But the point is something else. If it turns out homeless people are assembling under the bridge, redo the bridge to be liveable or create something nearby that would attract them to go and live there. If they're throwing trash around, put people there to collect trash or create an environment where it would be easier to dispose trash in a safe way. Money is beint spent to assimilate homeless people and it's obviously not working.
Don't tell me that a country who put a man on Moon can't deliver sanitary service to millions citizens so they have to shit on the streets?