Do you have any concrete examples of this? I'm having trouble picturing these.
Conservative: "homelessness is a problem! make homelessness illegal and people will get homes because they are homeless by choice!" ("is there any evidence that people are homeless by choice?" *crickets*)
Liberal: "defund the police!" ("but who would deter petty crime?" *crickets*)
American homelessness problem is massively fueled by lack of inpatient psychiatric healthcare. People who are clearly out of their mind are allowed to live like wild animals, so that no one violates their rights not to be institutionalized.
While the asylums of yesterday were quite often bad, this is no better and a balance should be reached. Instead the pendulum just swung wildly from extreme A to extreme B.
---------------------------------------------------------
Edit: I must come back to your statement:
"Minsk people must live in fear of losing their homes, knowing that if they do, they will be disappeared."
There is a hidden assumption in there, namely, the expectation that if someone loses their home, their inevitable fate is to camp in the street, start fires etc. It might be so in your jurisdiction, but that is not really true worldwide. Many places in the world will try to help you somehow, at least up to a point.
Of course, if you have such help available and still refuse to make use of it and instead start living in an encampment and bother/harass other people, you aren't an innocent victim anymore, but a general nuisance. In that case, why shouldn't you be punished for your anti-social behavior? Unless you are insane, of course. In that case, a hospital should it be.
Ultimately it is about which level of antisocial behavior under which conditions is tolerated by which society. I noticed that the American left is really into glorification of antisocial behaviour, which it re-interprets as a creative rebellion against the capitalist society that should never be corrected by anyone. This worldview is much less widespread in Europe and almost absent in Asia.
Outside the US, you will often get at least some help, but if you turn it down, the law will prefer peace of the commons to your right of doing whatever you feel like. E.g. most countries will at least try kick smelly people out of libraries and public transport, because it is an expensive, subsidized commons that shouldn't be repulsive for median customers, who are quite often poor-ish themselves.
A person in my family started one of the first rape crises centers in the U.S. She always said "Police need to be social workers, and social workers need to be police" summarizing the issues each faced most that they were poorly prepared for all those generations ago.
If you want dumb conservative positions on homelessness I would suggest "just lock them all up", "just make them get jobs", "just get them out of MY neighborhood."
Self-described conservative friend: Specific views about dealing with cultural differences that require some kind of resolution. The desire for immediate "simple" solutions, without any signs of awareness or respect for the "others" and why solutions were not attempted before.
My view: Patience is necessary for a real solution. Resolving these kinds of differences takes time, and often is best done case by case directly by the people involved in each situation until a common pattern emerges. The people needing accommodations deserve some extra respect, for the lack of it that made them invisible until recently.
Self-described liberal friend: Inability to consider economic closure over environmental costs, so the market maximizes resource/impact efficiencies relative to their actual costs. The dissonance being this would raise prices.
My view: We are destroying the environment, which economically should be viewed as a commonly held asset, not an unowned asset. The result is we are not optimizing its future value. Any (slowly introduced) rational pricing optimizes both costs and efficiencies, and incentivizes improvements for both. The longer we wait, the more damage our economy subsidizes.
These are reasonable intelligent people. I cannot tell you their nuanced views, just their reactions and a common human theme: reluctance to go deeper.