Why are Conservatives supporting government intervention into Occupy encampments?

I've been pondering this curious dilemma for some time now.  Conservative comments have been flowing on the internet for weeks, demanding that governments act on local laws and intervene to break up local occupations.  Likewise, governments - following Portland's move - have cited health and safety as reasons for intervening.

But the last time I checked, Conservatives have been demanding fewer regulations and particularly less paternalism by local and federal governments.

Oh sure, people are quick to throw up the cost of repairs to the parks.  But when money has been an issue, states like California have simply closed public park access so that they wouldn't have to pay for upkeep and security.  No one is standing in the way of cities stopping their upkeep of parks that are occupied.  If toilets need to be cleaned, have the Occupy movements clean them up themselves; if trash needs to be removed, have the Occupy movements arrange to have the trash hauled themselves.  It's no different than a sovereign nation - like a native Indian tribe - assuming responsibility for its own needs.

Is it an eyesore?  Sure.  But I know for a fact, few people out of a city's entire population, will ever actually see the encampment in person; this indignation for tents in the middle of a city is feigned by ulterior bias.

What it comes down to, is that people don't want to be reminded that a society is more than your own little world that has fences to delineate borders that shall not be crossed.