[airnomad]

Take children playgrounds for example - you have them where you have a lot of families with kids, right? And that makes sense since that is kind of public infrastructure supporting the needs of a certain population.

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.

[highhedgehog]

Kids playgrounds are nice because they are not a health risk to anyone.

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?

[airnomad]

You don't get it. Why would they need to quit drugs or go somewhere? If we want that, we're capable to put them by force where ever we want. We're also able to put them on drug rehab by force if we want to.

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?