Are there not already laws on the books criminalizing the problems that sometimes happen when homeless people exist in parks or other public places? It seems like it would make more sense to enforce those laws against the people violating them rather than simply criminalize the existence of people without housing. The city at the center of the current supreme court case has at least 600 homeless people and possibly twice that depending on who you ask. And precisely one homeless shelter. A private religious one with only 139 beds that requires that people be sober, not in romantic relationships, and willing to regularly attend religious indoctrination sessions if they want housing. The city itself apparently can't be bothered to even make a minimal effort to help the homeless since it operates precisely zero homeless shelter beds. What exactly are the unhoused people in that community supposed to do to avoid violating this absurd law?