But that's just me I guess.
The effect would be that smaller towns with limited budgets would face a potential influx of homeless people, since they don't have the resources to build shelters and therefore cannot ban public camping.
Also, the proposed shelter constraint on the law is pretty dubious. Say a town builds a shelter and then it bans public camping. Does that law get nullified if a tornado destroys the shelter space? What if the shelter has 5 beds, but the homeless population grows to 100? At what point does that law become voided?
Democracy.
This is useless hyperbole.
I call BS, there's thousands of other places in the country aside from downtown SF or other areas where they decide to congregate
SC isn't banning homelessness nationwide, I highly doubt every municipality will ban it at once. It's just giving municipalities that suddenly get hordes of them showing up the ability to make them go elsewhere