If your forum's moderation is a fraction of a percent more tolerant towards a group of people who generally aren't tolerated, you will end up with the entire gr

If your forum's moderation is a fraction of a percent more tolerant towards a group of people who generally aren't tolerated, you will end up with the entire group on your forum, oftentimes in numbers exceeding those of your original community. If you want a couple examples from the recent past, do you remember how a lot of communities made rules against posting stuff about My Little Pony (at one point, 4chan, a site that will normally allow anything, had to create a site-wide rule about it), or the way some subreddits became alt-right hubs over the course of a few weeks after someone found out the moderators would let them post stuff about it? The effect of this is to force everyone into a posture of equal hostility, even if they do not themselves care one way or the other. This is exacerbated by the fact that any amenities designed to service the homeless (like a wi-fi tower out in a field where an encampment wouldn't bother anyone) would amount to officially recognizing the existence of the buildings erected there. I do not think the city could handle the contradiction of forcing one type of resident to go through an elaborate permitting process to build a shed, but allowing another resident to erect a temporary home in an officially recognized location. They are stuck turning a blind eye to it. If you combine the two effects, you end up with the case they have now, where small-scale amenities will be overwhelmed, while large-scale amenities or directly intentioned actions are impossible because they would violate the fiction that none of this is happening. I know it sound hard to believe - that within the eyes of the system there are no homeless encampments: but just to offer one piece of evidence in support of it, I am not aware of any fire inspections going on in the tent villages.