Codified charity?

  I was reading about a case before the supreme court regarding camping in public spaces. This is in regard to the homeless population pitching their tents on the city streets and sidewalks, in the parks or whatever. The question before the court is whether or not this can be stopped. That is to say, can towns and cities pass legislation making it illegal? The eighth amendment is being cited for arguments for and against. The section about cruel and unusual punishment being the basis for argument. The court has decided some years ago that you can not be punished for your "status." That means for a situation you can't control. The homeless people are not homeless by choice, not their fault and therefore cannot be punished for that. They have a right to sleep outdoors on public property. 

 That's one side of the argument. The other side is that they are creating a public nuisance, creating an unsafe environment, affecting property values, disrupting businesses and generally causing harm to others by their presence. Those that aren't homeless, that are simply trying to live their lives, run their business or enjoy the public facilities shouldn't be imposed upon or impeded. Those "camping" have no sanitary facilities, no heat, no running water, and face no building codes or regulations. All of those are requirements for homeowners or landlords. They are creating a public safety issue. If I can be evicted from my home for failure to adhere to those rules and regulations, why should they be allowed. The argument is, not their fault.

 It's a sticky wicket for sure. What do you do? Personally, I can see both sides of the coin. There are many homeless through no fault of their own. Does that mean "we the people" are then obligated to provide for those people? It is certainly a moral and ethical question. Is it a legal one? Yes, that is what the court faces, codifying charity. Codified charity is another form of socialism. I do have an issue with that. I don't believe the government has the authority to require me to be charitable in any way. Yes, I have to pay taxes, fees, and any number of things to receive whatever benefit for that payment. That isn't charity, that is also a choice. I can refuse to pay and be refused the service or commodity. If I don't want to pay taxes at all I can just quit working! But in doing so should that then obligate you to support me? 

 The answer is of course, no. It's my choice. Now as far as the homeless population goes, how do they prove they are homeless not by their choice? The court put it this way. You can be punished for selling illegal drugs, you can be punished for public intoxication. You can't be punished because you are an alcoholic or a drug addict. You have no control over that. It could be argued however that it was your choice to begin using those things, and that is what caused the addiction. It could also be argued that it was through your own actions that you became homeless. Poor financial management on your part doesn't create a crisis on my part. 

 I don't have an answer to this problem. My thought at this time is this. We have 63 national parks. These parks are maintained by the taxpayers and are public property. Perhaps that is where all the homeless people should be housed. It is public property. It is also a place where they wouldn't interfere with the normal day to day business of hard-working Americans. Facilites could be provided for sanitation. Perhaps communities would develop in that way. I'm not saying they would be confined to those parks, not interred there, but a place where they can pitch their tents in relative safety. Not much different than homeless shelters really. 

 That would never happen though because we want to enjoy the natural beauty of those parks. These national parks are chosen for their natural beauty, unique geological features, diverse ecosystems, and recreational opportunities. Can't be having the homeless folks ruining our recreational opportunities. But should we allow those same folks to just camp out wherever they want, on any piece of public property without regulation or rule? I'll be waiting for the decision of the court.