Should homeless individuals, that have refused available shelter or housing, be allowed to sleep or encamp on public property?

Yes and No. Should there be a place to house the homeless? Absolutely. Do I want them occupying public spaces intended for recreation (ie. parks)? No

Yes but only on public property set aside for that purpose. It should not be allowed if it is impacting the publics ability to use the property for its intended use.

Yes: it's public property. They can't be forced to leave without committing a crime.

No, but create more social programs to provide free food, clothing and medicine as well as better and safer shelters as current are not at all "safe" spaces, which is why many refuse to stay.

If they aren't creating a disturbance to others, actively engage in improving or maintaining the property, then I don't see an issue with their presence.

Yes, but not public property within city limits.

Regardless, should be decided by the state.

Individuals have a right to traverse and loiter on public property, regardless of whether they are homeless or not, so long as they are not damaging property or otherwise depriving the rest of the public of their ability to enjoy those spaces safely. Large groups of people creating "pop-up villages" within a space not designed and designated for the purpose create a hazard for those living there, deprive the rest of the general public of its use of the property, and can create an undue and unintended burden on surrounding infrastructure. I support the rights of individuals to traverse and loiter as well as the rights of local governments to protect public assets and ensure public safety.

No, force them to join military

yes, as long as it is not disturbing anyone or anything.

Only if there was reason for them to not want to stay the shelter

This is a city specific issue and should be decided on that level. My personal stance is no.