The law, in majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as poor to beg in the streets.

pO157.

Posted to Legal on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:46:13 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Now one group in Florida is going against The Law by refusing to cease and desist its feeding of the homeless in public areas.

At the request of residents and merchants in West Palm Beach, Florida the city council recently passed a law against feeding the homeless in public. The measure was in response to complaints by residents and merchants about panhandling, begging, drunkenness and violent behavior caused by groups of homeless after "do-gooders" brought food to the public square every Saturday to serve to those down on their luck.

The charity "Food Not Bombs" sets up shop every Saturday at 4:30pm on the public square sharp to serve a hot meal of beans, rice, corn on the cob, macaroni and cheese, potatoes, broccoli and pastries. They also distribute clean bottled water to the homeless.

One resident complained to organizers that their activities did more than just violate a local ordinance. Downtown resident Lela Kaleis complained that the free food attracted unsavory characters, like a rapist who attacked two women leaving a bar in July 2006. "What about that homeless man who raped those two girls. Feed the homeless. But be responsible and feed them in a controlled area."

Other residents complained that some homeless could work and were just freeloading. They suggested if free food was not available the transients would be forced to get work honestly. "There are people that are here that can work." said John Reis.

The city stated that they offered a compromise to the groups to give them sites to host their free dinners off of the public square. However, organizers said the square is the best place due to water fountains, trash receptacles, tables, chairs and free restroom use for event participants inside the library next door. They turned down the compromise measure and said they do not intend on moving, even though violating the new law could bring them 60 days in jail.

During the latest feeding police did not interfere, although they stood by, ate ice cream and took photos of the participants.

< iPhone, YouPhone, We All Scream For iPhone [Review]

Time To Sell Your Dollars? >

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, food, begging (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 12 comments (3 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

4	Risk port1080. Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:53:34 AM EST 5.00

This law and others like it bring up an interesting point - what is our acceptable level of risk in doing various activities? For example, we have this Lela Kale complaining that allowing the homeless to be fed in the park makes it more dangerous and increases her risk of getting raped. This may be so, but there are other activities (such as walking alone, leaving one's doors unlocked, etc) that also increase one's risk of getting raped, and yet no one argues that we should legislate people's right to walk alone, or to leave their door unlocked at night. We make an unconscious cost trade-off - the majority realizes that those laws will inconvenience them, but denying a service such as this to the homeless only inconveniences the homeless (who probably don't vote anyway). So, I don't really buy the argument about crime - this is about class, mainly. Rich people want poor people out of sight, out of mind.

6 4	Re: Risk wetkarma. Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:03:55 PM EST none

I think the way people look at the cost/benefit is like this:

You can feed the homeless anywhere and they get fed.

When you feed the homeless in any particular location however, they will congregate near to that area (after all thats where the food supply is). The homeless who tend to be rife (relative to people who have homes) with various mental illnesses make the immediate neighborhood unappealing for those who might want to frequent it with their kids and wallets.

Thus you get a twin call to think both of the children and of the local businesses as the homeless being where they are (wherever that is) prevents inhibits these two demos. What I'm describing is akin to the broken window theory of economics...you let the homeless hang out in the park, and soon you'll have the drug dealers followed by the gang bangers...after a while the chuds will start becoming frisky.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

10 6	Re: Risk pO157. Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:05:17 PM EST none

I am also of two minds on this issue. On one hand, good for the group for feeding the homeless. Of course, there probably are some "sponges" in there who could work and are just scamming them, but the food and resources are FNW's property to dispose of as they wish.

On the other hand, as the event organizers they do bear some responsibility to make sure the situation does not get out of hand and and negatively impact the surrounding area. I'd really like to see some compromise between them and the city. For example, could the city allow the charity to feed the homeless and simply criminalize the objectionable behavior in question (aggressive panhandling, public drinking, etc) and strictly enforce those laws? That would probably keep those up to no good out of the area. Could the group accept paying for reasonable things to make the event run more smoothly (extra trash cans, seating, and city cleanup afterwards)?

There has to be some give & take here.

10

Re: Risk

thefadd.

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:52:31 PM EST

none

Why should those who "could work" be considered sponges? If you're giving away food why should you be discriminating? Perhaps if they invited more "mainstream" people to come eat, they would gain wider community acceptance.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

11

Re: Risk

pO157.

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:43:11 PM EST

none

If the purpose of the event is to feed those who are homeless and fell on bad times through no fault of their own then giving food to those who choose not to work simply diverts resources from the 'deserving poor.' But, as I mentioned above, the group is private and is allowed to do as it chooses. Certainly I think their goal is noble (if almost impossible - could you really eliminate homelessness within a decade or ever?) and I would support them.

Regarding your second point, I am assuming that the event is mostly designed for the homeless community. However, it would be a cool idea if they turned it into a community meal for everybody who felt like showing up and mingling. I do not know if a wide segment of the city would go, but it would probably help FNB's cause among those who showed up.

1	Re: The law, in majestic equality, forbids the ric wetkarma. Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:19:03 AM EST none

Am I going mad or wasn't this one of the first TnT stories? I recall writing an opinion in favor of the city at that time. Maybe same argument different city?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

2 1	Re: The law, in majestic equality, forbids the ric port1080. Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:07:38 AM EST none

You're right and you're wrong. The old article was about a similar ordinance passed in Orlando. This one is in West Palm Beach. The group (Food Not Bombs) is the same in both cases, but the cities are not particularly close to each other. I don't know if there is any direct relation between the two ordinances.

7 2	update DEMachina. Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:36:20 AM EST none

The guy in Orlando has been acquitted, and admonished not to feed the homeless anymore.

Fark has a Florida tag for a reason.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

8 7	Re: update pO157. Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:42:41 AM EST none

Looked like jury nullification. But how did they admonish him? Or was that the judge after the verdict?

9 8	Re: update DEMachina. Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:51:54 AM EST none

Well, that's mostly me being snarky: they basically said "don't break the law anymore."

Still, when the law is unjust....

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

3 1	Re: The law, in majestic equality, forbids the ric zyxwvutsr. Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:44:26 AM EST none

...wasn't this one of the first TnT stories?

And a rip-roaring discussion it was, too. But doing it again is good for two reasons:

It gives me a chance to reuse the chart I made showing the great success of Clinton's welfare reform, and,
"Food not Bombs" is the name of the organization doing the feeding. That's comedy gold, Wetkarma! Gold!

5	Question thefadd. Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:10:24 PM EST none

Does anyone know if they feed everyone who wants some food or only those who appear or claim to be homeless?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This story: 12 comments (3 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

pO157.

Posted to Legal on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:46:13 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Risk

port1080.

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:53:34 AM EST

4

Re: Risk

wetkarma.

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:03:55 PM EST

6

Re: Risk

pO157.

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:05:17 PM EST

10

Re: Risk

thefadd.

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:52:31 PM EST

11

Re: Risk

pO157.

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:43:11 PM EST

Re: The law, in majestic equality, forbids the ric

wetkarma.

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:19:03 AM EST

1

Re: The law, in majestic equality, forbids the ric

port1080.

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:07:38 AM EST

2

update

DEMachina.

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:36:20 AM EST

7

Re: update

pO157.

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:42:41 AM EST

8

Re: update

DEMachina.

Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:51:54 AM EST

1

Re: The law, in majestic equality, forbids the ric

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:44:26 AM EST

Question

thefadd.

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:10:24 PM EST