[digisign]

Not every. There's an odd coalition of rural republicans who don't want to pay, in cahoots with inner-city lefties fighting for the freedom to eat out of garbage cans. Add in a court restriction here and there and local government's hands are tied.

There's also the factor that it is a nation-wide problem. Once city can't solve it, if they did everyone would just go there.

[ZeroGravitas]

Laws preventing people eating out of garbage cans seems to indicate that there are people who feel compelled to do so, presumably because the system has failed them terribly.

How does an inner city lefty being against such a law (which just seems to be criminalizing extreme poverty), put them in league with the people who don't want a social safety net and so are placing people in that very situation?

Isn't it cheaper to give them food than to lock them in prison ... and then give them food?

[digisign]

Results, not intentions. Seems you have focused on the "garbage" phrase, but it was not meant to be exactly literal. To clarify, it was rather shorthand for everything these folks do.

More specifically, supporting the mentally ill to refuse treatment. Later (as you allude), they will vocally support not enforcing various quality of life laws that have been broken. Logically, these two things are in conflict. Either the mentally ill are competent to make decisions, or they aren't... pick one.

This, combined with lack of funding are the primary hurdles to helping these folks get into places to care for them. I would also support other subsets of the homeless population to be helped. But, a lot of people prefer them just where they are apparently. The results of their actions speak louder than words.