It has to do with city budgets and many other factors. It is known that if you spend the money to house the homeless, you save money in the long run. There are fewer health care expenses and less crime and all kinds of other benefits. Unfortunately, when the cities are strapped, to be seen spending money on homeless instead of on education is politically indefensible.
In Philly, the theory is not to help the homeless in the parks, but to get them indoors where not only can you feed them, but you can get them the medical care they need to deal with their mental illnesses and then you can get them into permanent housing and stabilize their lives.
It is seen that feeding in public enables the homeless to stay homeless. Yet, do-gooders think they are doing good—feeding hungry people. Never mind that them feeling good about feeding the homeless is harming the homeless in the long run. No one sees the long run except policy wonks.
I believe that in my city, we really want to help. But the way we do it doesn’t look good. Perhaps there are more creative ways that could help harness the energy of emotional do-gooders with actual good policy that works. But we aren’t there yet.
In other cities, I don’t know. It sure seems like many just want to kick out the homeless if they can, or at least banish them to parts of town where tourists and rich people won’t have to see them. It’s not an unexpected attitude.