It's called San Francisco. They can go there.

That's why local government is the best kind of government, and it's why the Supreme Court giving back the local government the power to work for the citizens in their neighborhood streets is a good thing.

It's actually not nearly as many who are just, "down on their luck" as we like to believe - not like it used to be. Around 2/3 of the homeless have life long drug and alcohol use disorders, and that includes ones in shelters who have to follow rules. It's likely far higher for the homeless encampments on the street where there are no rules.

The exception shouldn't dictate the rule for a municipality that wants to clean up it's streets. What we've been doing isn't working, maybe this will be a catalyst to enacting some real change.

If not, then the 2/3 who don't like it and won't sober up to go into a shelter can leave and go to one of the Marxist (i.e., democrat) sanctuary utopian hellscapes where they'll be welcomed with open arms.

Just because a few really do deserve sympathy doesn't mean something shouldn't be done at all. I don't necessarily like the idea of it just like you, but I also don't like the idea an ideological, Marxist bureaucrat with a robe on telling millions of taxpayers hundreds of miles away that they can't clean up their city streets and open air drug markets. There has to be alternatives to what lower courts have saddled local municipalities with, and ultimately the fault lies at the feet of the homeless drug addicts for putting a target on their own backs. After 10 years of shitting and pissing in the streets, heavy drug use, and multiple narcan doses, there comes a point where it's time for a homeless drug addict to get his shite together and get off the streets. I promise you the nanny state won't let him starve in the shelter or go without top shelf, free healthcare.