It's an understandable thing, at times. I know I became significantly less friendly towards encampments after one sparked a wildfire that posed a non-trivial chance of affecting the building I lived in.

I first went through a phase of "but why can't we just get them into housing?". Eventually I realized that helping the current members of the encampment would address the issue for a few days or a week, but that a new set of vulnerable neighbors would occupy the same space in short order. This cycle would repeat until who knows when, which did not strike me as an attractive proposition.

The other residents in my building followed the same thought process, and decided that the best thing for them was to advocate for the owner of the land to clear encampments. I kept my mouth shut. Nobody was going to thank me for telling them that the morally superior option was to risk having their homes burned down and their children burned alive.

That's not NIMBY. It's more like saying vs. doing.

That’s EXACTLY what NIMBY is. Everyone talks a big game until it hits close to home. There is an effort going on called YIMBY as obviously an opposite that is trying to get people on board with housing developments in these areas we’re talking about. [0]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YIMBY