Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
Did you know that somewhere in America, it is illegal to feed the homeless in public? It can’t be true can it? It is true in Fort Lauderdale, Florida after the recent passage of an ordinance by the city council. The real scary part of that news is that Fort Lauderdale is not alone in taking this anti-compassionate stance!
“Over 30 cities across the nation have outlawed or are considering criminalizing the provision of food to homeless people. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, over 20 cities have devised laws against giving food to homeless people since January 2013.” Nation of Change
While I can understand this stance if these cities are adding health guidelines to make such feeding attempts safer, I am shocked that over 30 cities have outlawed it or are considering outlawing the practice of giving food to the hungry and homeless. Are public picnics next on the hit list?
Why would any city want to stop the feeding of the homeless in public? Just who are these brigands who are trying to destroy the city of Fort Lauderdale by having the audacity to feed the hungry?
“In an act of compassion and civil disobedience, a 90-year-old man and two pastors in Fort Lauderdale openly defied a new city ordinance barring anyone from feeding homeless people in public. After police intervened and charged them with a crime, 90-year-old Arnold Abbott and Pastor Dwayne Black returned several days later to break the draconian law again. Although Abbott received another citation, police decided not to place him in custody.
Last Sunday, Arnold Abbott, Pastor Dwayne Black of The Sanctuary Church in Fort Lauderdale, and Mark Sims of St. Mary Magdalene Episcopal Church in Coral Springs fed homeless people in a public park in South Florida two days after the city passed a new ordinance outlawing the provision of food to vagrants in public. After getting arrested, the two pastors and elderly homeless advocate each face a $500 fine and up to 60 days in jail.
“One of the police officers said, ‘Drop that plate right now,’ as if I were carrying a weapon,” recalled Abbott. “It’s man’s inhumanity to man is all it is.”
On Wednesday evening, Abbott and Pastor Black remained undeterred as they served a four-course meal to nearly 100 homeless people at Fort Lauderdale Beach. After police officers recorded the simple act of kindness on their video cameras, they escorted Abbott away from the crowd to fingerprint him and issue another citation. Wary of public backlash, law enforcement officials chose not to place Abbott in handcuffs and haul him off to jail again.” Nation of Change
The City of Fort Lauderdale claims that they don’t want hungry and homeless people fed in public because they claim it will only keep them from trying to get out of the cycle of homelessness. Of course, one has to wonder if the real reason might be related to the tourism trade that brings in big dollars to Fort Lauderdale. After all, it seems that this latest ordinance to ban the feeding of the homeless in public is just one of the anti-homeless ordinances passed by the city fathers of Fort Lauderdale.
“Backed by the Chamber of Commerce, the recent city ordinance is the fourth law Fort Lauderdale has passed this year against the homeless. The other laws ban homeless people from panhandling at traffic intersections and outlaw sleeping or storing their belongings on public property. According to Pastor Black, the recent food-sharing ordinance passed after a long meeting past midnight after many people had gone home.
“It’s a pubic safety issue. It’s a public health issue,” Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler rationalized. “The experts have all said that if you’re going to feed them to get them from breakfast to lunch to dinner, all you’re doing is enabling that cycle of homelessness.”
One of these so-called experts is Ron Book, a city lobbyist who commended the Fort Lauderdale commissioners for passing the ordinance. Book told the commissioners that feeding impoverished people on the streets merely sanctions homelessness. Book added, “Whatever discourages feeding people on the streets is a positive thing.” ‘ Nation of Change
I just love it when experts turn out to be lobbyists pedaling their bosses wares. Mr. Abbot has made it his life’s work to help the poor and this isn’t the first time he has fought with Fort Lauderdale over feeding people in public. He won a court case against the city in 1999 over this same issue and Fort Lauderdale may be looking at another court case over this issue.
While I do understand that large groups of homeless people can impact the look and feel of any city, the realities of how many of these people end up on the streets is no mystery. However, it seems that Fort Lauderdale would rather punish the poor and the people trying to help them rather than attempt to help solve some of the problems that leads people into the streets.
Mr. Abbott and the ministers have taken it upon themselves to treat these homeless people as humans and strive to provide them with a meal. Fort Lauderdale gets an early Grinch award for punishing the modern-day Samaritans who are doing the job that Fort Lauderdale refuses to do. Kudos to these individuals who are risking themselves to help the less fortunate.
I think it is time for the Mayor and the City Council to start rolling up their sleeves and helping feed and house and treat the homeless. Or get out-of-the-way. What do you think?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Pogo, put down your partisanship for a moment if you can, I know it’s hard, but try.
I worked with the mentally ill in the County hospita years ago. I saw the wards empty to dump these people out into halfway houses and apartments. Because they suffered serious side effects from the antipsychotic meds they stopped taking their meds and eventually got kicked out of their living arraignments. They lived on the streets sometimes by choice, there was more freedom from rules and regs they couldn’t comply with. I think institutionalization is better than street living but do you think that the commitment laws will ever be relaxed? Realistically, no. At this point there aren’t enough facilities and institutions to house the numbers that are out on the streets at this time. In the meantime, there is an obvious need to feed them, homeless shelters and feeding centers are overwhelmed. You think your ‘tough love’ will work on the mentally ill? Really? You’re a doctor, you don’t know they can’t be reasoned with when they’re not on their meds?
Annie – the Supreme Court unleashed the mentally ill on the streets. You can thank them.
I’m fairly certain Rafferty knew full well what party was involved and because of his decency he didn’t care and recognized the injustice. But I’m sure he can speak for himself. Interesting how someone wants to see the glass half empty and attribute the worst possible traits to people. I think it’s projection.
Annie – let Rafflaw speak for himself.
It’s interesting that Annie favors programs that actually harm the homeless, just so she can preen.
And it leaves unanswered the problem common to warmer cities is that offering free food attracts more and more indigent to the area.
So the base working population has to spend more and more to fund a failed system. This leaves less money for the region’s poor. Why are you disenfranchising them?
BFM,
It’s interesting that it’s mainly Dems and liberals who are in favor of allowing the outdoor feelings of the homeless and the conservatives talk of defecation and compare them to pigeons here in this thread.
“and for many reasons some homeless do not choose life in a shelter.”
Crazy people cannot choose. They are unable to do so. Their brains do not function normally; that’s what ‘crazy’ means. Behaving as if you are offering them something they can’t take advantage of is either cruel or insane itself.
“Feeding homeless in parks is safe, efficient and effective. We have decades of data to prove that is true.”
Yet you seem unable to understand why the rest of the Democrat-run city might not want their public parks to become de facto homeless shelters. If it’s so ‘safe’, why do they oppose it.
And ‘effective’? You mean they get food?
What does the word ‘effective’ mean here?
“fund shelters and other programs to help the homeless back into the system.”
But just above that you wrote that the homeless reject this help.
Ludicrous.
“And ‘effective’? You mean they get food?
What does the word ‘effective’ mean here?….“fund shelters and other programs to help the homeless back into the system.”
But just above that you wrote that the homeless reject this help….Ludicrous.”
Effective means that we can maintain contact and offer services that range from feeding to informing them of resources available.
Its seems ludicrous only if you read without comprehension. Your claim is based on selectively presenting words to support your position because you have no fact or logic to make a coherent argument.
I clearly indicated that many do seek help at shelters. I clearly stated that many are turned away because shelters and other resources do not have the capacity.
But some homeless do not choose to use the resources. That is part of why we need outreach to inform and convince.
And you are correct some homeless have serious mental or cognitive problems and are incapable of making reasoned decisions.
I am sure that even a person like you can understand that there is some complexity to the problem of homelessness. Some homeless actively seek to use the resources made available. Some are not aware and need help and direction. Some choose not to use the resources but may be convinced with thoughtful intervention. And some for one reason or another cannot make reasonable, informed decisions to help themselves out of homelessness.
That is all complicated by the fact that resources for homeless are typically underfunded with inadequate capacity to serve those in need.
BFM, I don’t remember your declaration but I guess I always assumed you were based on your balanced and reasoned comments. I just like to keep pointing out that fact. This thread interests me because the politics and philosophies has caused a cross rip on this thread. I like when that happens. I think the author assumed it was evil Republican pols doing this. I like it when politics is turned on its head.
@Nick ” In this case, it is Dems “harassing” the homeless w/ nanny laws.”
I think I have mentioned before that I am independent.
I don’t care who is harassing the homeless. It needs to stop.
Out reach programs for the homeless feed in the parks because that is frequently where the homeless can be found.
Public spaces like parks are one of the very few spaces where the homeless have a right to be.
Some homeless have the awareness and resources to seek the support of shelters. But shelter space is limited and for many reasons some homeless do not choose life in a shelter. As a result many homeless remain on the street either through choice or because there simply is no space for them.
As a result, aid to the homeless must include a component for outreach to contact the homeless where they are.
Feeding homeless in parks is safe, efficient and effective. We have decades of data to prove that is true.
If you want to reduce the numbers fed in parks then fund shelters and other programs to help the homeless back into the system.
BFM, In this case, it is Dems “harassing” the homeless w/ nanny laws.
I’ll believe the left in Florida is morally superior when they open their mansions to the homeless.
Feeding people in the park as if they were dogs or birds is shameful.
“I am not aware of any one who claims that feeding in public spaces is the only step necessary or desirable to help the homeless.”
You could not be more mistaken. The liberal left made certain that institutionalization carried a moral stigma, and has repeatedly fought for the “freedom” to be crazy and frightened and homeless.
The insane are “free” to sleep under bridges, defecating in public parks, and harass passersby, and be beaten and robbed by other crazies or yutes out looking for fun.
The “long list of services” are “available” to persons who are cognitively unable to take advantage of them, or too crazy to comply. Eventually, the only institutionalization favored by the left is imprisonment once they become violent.
Save your moral preening for the choir.
“Don de Drain
Pogo
I’m very interested to hear how someone like you proposes to “solve their problem.” Your solution apparently doesn’t include feeding them.”
Institutionalization includes food and shelter, the dignity of work, and medical and psychiatric care.
The liberal solution offers sporadic food outside as if people were pigeons, but primarily confers the opportunity for morally pretentious drama, mostly for the press.
“The liberal solution offers sporadic food outside as if people were pigeons, but primarily confers the opportunity for morally pretentious drama, mostly for the press.”
I don’t know whether it is due to fundamental dishonesty or profound ignorance, but if there were ever a flatly wrong characterization that has got to be it.
I am not aware of any one who claims that feeding in public spaces is the only step necessary or desirable to help the homeless.
On the contrary if you ask people who actually want to help the homeless and others with significant problems you will likely get a long list of services that are poorly funded by the politicians in power.
As for “morally pretentious drama”, who do you think you are kidding?
It is called civil disobedience. And why shouldn’t we use the press to point the spotlight at the shameful practices of those who harass the homeless and those who attempt to help them.
I can’t believe the Dems are Homelessphobes! Why do they hate the mentally ill?
Some claim there are issues of public safety that support restricting feeding in public spaces.
We have decades of evidence in The District of Columbia about public safety. McKenna’s wagon has been distributing soup and sandwiches prepared at Martha’s Table for decades. There are other groups that distribute food to the homeless as well. But McKenna’s has a well established program that uses several vans that make several stops each. They feed a lot of people 7 days a week – even on holidays. There are no problems – none, except the discomfort of those who do not like to be reminded of the numbers with severe problems not being served by society.
Perhaps the single real threat to safety is food borne illness. To the best of my knowledge that has never been a problem DC. But jurisdictions concerned about food borne illness could easily require registration and inspection of the preparation kitchens and distribution resources by their local health department for those who wish to distribute food to the homeless.
Those who suggest that the food distribution to the homeless should be restricted so that they will seek solutions for their problems fail to distinguish short term and long term needs. People have to eat every day. Learning or reacquiring life skills to get and keep a job may take months. And I would argue that if local government actually put in place the resources necessary to support the homeless climb back into society then the feeding lines would be greatly reduced.
Those who interfere with feeding the homeless without first putting in place a strong program to address issues like shelter, life skills, job skills, and mental health issues demonstrate they have no interest in helping the homeless. We should recognize that claims regarding public safety and helping the homeless for what they are, rationalizations to justify keeping the homeless out of sight and out of mind.
As for those who complain the homeless and those feeding them are using public space, I would ask what more appropriate space could there possibly be? It is their space as well, isn’t it?
@ Don the drain
… a very difficult situation with your family member. Unfortunately, many of the homeless are paranoid schizophrenics and it is a viscious cycle.
This reminds me of a story about a man who was not welcome….
An impoverished old man applied for membership in a wealthy church. The pastor tried to put him off with all kinds of evasive remarks. The old man became aware that he was not welcome there and finally told the pastor that he would pray about it. After several days he returned. “Well,” asked the pastor, “Did the Lord give you a message?” “Yes Sir, He did” was the old man’s answer. “He told me it wasn’t any use. He said, “I’ve been trying to get in that same church myself for ten years and they won’t let me in either.”
Pogo
I’m very interested to hear how someone like you proposes to “solve their problem.” Your solution apparently doesn’t include feeding them.
I’ve been trying to solve the problem of my sometimes homeless mentally ill family member for a long time. I tried involuntary commitment only to see them prevail in the commitment hearing. I’ve tried helping out myself, only to have the help rejected due to paranoia. They are extremely intelligent, as they were HS Valedictorian in class of over 600, so education is not the solution. I’m all ears if you can take a time out from spewing vitriol to offer a real solution.
There are some people on the blog that make fun of others and accuse them of being paranoid schizophrenics if they say they have been up all night. It is very pleasant. And that’s from a Liberal – of course
If I am at a park and I bring food for a gathering, all my friends can partake and no city permit or law is violated. If people who are deemed homeless come over to partake in the activity, the law is being violated and people may be arrested. Seems these people are treated as subhuman. Many on this board have even made comparisons to pigeons. Outlawing giving a person food in a non_government sanctioned location is not a humane answer.
d john – the problem is that the government wants to control everything. It is the progressive way.