> Begs the question of, homes where. Public housing, hotel rooms, condominiums, remote cabins, camps, shelters, the devil is in those details.
There are a wide variety of options. One which has historically worked well in Europe is to provide an area of shipping containers converted into simple homes with a shower, toilet, cot, and padlock on the door.
> "Homeless" is a euphemism, more of a metonym for a cluster of issues that form an identifiable other.
No, "homeless" is not a fucking euphemism. It means "without a home", just like "jobless" means "without a job" and "hopeless" means "without hope" and "grasp-on-reality-less" means "without a grasp on reality".
> Rich people need permits, licenses, planning permission, and community consent to build homes. Tent dwellers, not so much.
These permits, licenses, planning permission, and are community consent are necessary to prevent people with a wide variety of options from making decisions that harm other people.
Tent dwellers arguably cause harm to others by being there, but they don't have other options. The voluntarily homeless are few and far between.
The two kinds of laws are incomparable: one seeks to limit the harm done by people with too much power, while the other tries to write out of existence the only option a group of people have.
> In fact, if the resolution doesn't pass to prevent people from camping in the street, what's to stop anyone from setting up pre-fab luxury sidewalk camps like those at burning man.
When this becomes a problem let me know. Meanwhile, maybe we can talk about current real problems that exist, like the people who we are literally forcing to rot to death in our streets.