No, the "ruiners" are the ones who impose large costs on the system. Some people are just trying to live peacefully on the streets. In large enough numbers, yeah you'll get people treating public spaces poorly and it'll cause public health problems.

The key difference is that people like this who are living on the streets intentionally, if they get kicked out of the area they're living in or if the friend group gets broken up, they'll just go back to living in regular housing. Things like housing centers aren't useful to this group, but if you have cops go through arresting people they will go away.

(For what it's worth, my source knowledge here is totally personal and anecdotal. When I was a new grad student at Berkeley I was surprised when a roommate of a friend told me he had recently spent a few days on the streets. He explained to me that he did this often, panhandling to make some extra money, thought it was generally fun, and met a number of people doing it for similar reasons.)

Personally I'd call anyone who is homeless "for fun" a ruiner. In addition to overstressing the systems in place to support "legitimately homeless" people, they provide a convenient strawman for those who wish to argue that homeless people aren't deserving of help. The same goes for our welfare system.

> For what it's worth, my source knowledge here is totally personal and anecdotal.

Mine too. Same goes for the author of the article, I suspect. Everyone should take it with a grain of salt.

I think it depends on how they go about their lifestyle. Shouldn't we be free to choose whether we want to settle down in one location or wander around, as long as we're not hurting anybody? It seems unlawfully (un-American at least) restrictive to dictate how a person must live when it comes to their choice of residence

That's what it sounds like from the last paragraph.

> And they shit and piss on our streets, block sidewalks, litter profusely and otherwise do whatever they feel like.