> Taking a public asset and reserving it for exclusive use by certain individuals is not right: Thats a fancy way of saying: parks are not campgrounds. These ty

> Taking a public asset and reserving it for exclusive use by certain individuals is not right: Thats a fancy way of saying: parks are not campgrounds. These types of policies are plain wrong, and cities should know better by now. Just want to respond to that specific point. You are right in the absolute but in practice "we" indirectly allow companies/civil groups to use public space for different purposes. Some places are places for everyone to enjoy and having people privatize is a net loss for everyone like parks but a lot of public space is just unused space that nobody has ever stepped on because it's in a weird location or for some other reason and no one really cares to use it. I think it's reasonable to allow people temporarily (while it remains unused for the collective) in those spaces to remove a bit of the pressure of not having a home and having to constantly struggle for the bare minimum.