The issue is how you deal with a behavior that may be a net negative.
Do you ban it?
Or, Do you use education, incentives and support to change the prevalence of the behavior?
Also, are you completely sure that if you ban unstructured feeding, all the homeless will get fed in a structured way? Or will banning the feeding lead to some people starving?
Also, how do you know it's a net negative? Do you take the word of a politician who has incentive to move the homeless to low property value areas?
I live in Orlando, the city that got some infamy a number of years ago for banning the public unstructured feedings. I feel confident in saying that education seems to have failed, but banning seems to have been fairly successful at least with respect to curbing the behavior.
So that leaves the question of whether or not it's a net negative. Panhandling is demonstrably dangerous, and an argument for unstructured feeding is an argument for the status quo. I can definitely say that the status quo is an abject failure. As for the structured efforts, those must be measured and improved on an individual basis. They certainly have their own issues, but at least in my city those structured feeding facilities also provide access and information on medical care, job placement, and other assistance that is relevant to the homeless population.
Also, are you completely sure that if you ban unstructured feeding, all the homeless will get fed in a structured way? Or will banning the feeding lead to some people starving?
Also, how do you know it's a net negative? Do you take the word of a politician who has incentive to move the homeless to low property value areas?