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.”
It’s not illegal to feed the homeless in public. Organizations are allowed to them on public land without a permit OR written consent from the land owner. They don’t even have to have both things. Written permission from the property owner will suffice as long as there are 500 feet between outreach groups. And, no, I don’t think that’s bad.
Kelley do you think it should be illegal to feed the homeless on public lands? Is this ordinance a just one in your opinion?
Once again. It is NOT illegal to feed the homeless. It is illegal to use the public lands to do so.
No one is objecting to providing food to the homeless. To say otherwise is basically a lie. You just can’t do it THERE.
Kelley has many great ideas on how to comply with the public laws and get the homeless to areas where they can be fed AND provided with other necessary services and support. Merely throwing food at the situation in a unprotected park setting…… is a short term tactic and doesn’t solve the long term issues that the homeless are struggling with.
I have provided many examples that I know of from local agencies. The key to helping is to get the homeless to arrive at those centers and get help that they need.
Excellent suggestions Kelley. Can you explain the purpose of a steering committee as it relates to the church organizations? Who would compromise the steering committee?
For the record, I am also an advocate for helping the homeless. I operate a program here in Chicago called Neighboring The Neighborless and I network/brainstorm with fellow advocates worldwide.
Great question, Annie. Forgive me if I sound bullheaded – I do appreciate that there is actual dialogue happening here instead of the uninformed, emotionally charged ranting that’s generally taking place around the web.
Solutions? Sure. Does Love Thy Neighbor have a steering committee in place to brainstorm for solutions on how to operate while abiding by the law? Do other outreaches have committees? If not, put one in place. If so, keep thinking. The churches are allowed to bypass the public ordinances – why not have a volunteer car pool or provide a shuttle using church vans (most churches have at least one, usually more, 15 seater vans. Some have 26 seaters and many have retired school buses). Shuttle the homeless to churches, feed them, then bring them back to the designated area. Or how about the thousands of dollars people are so willingly throwing into gofundme accounts all around the web to pay Mr. Abbott’s legal fees? That just slays me – the general public is much more interested in “winning” and “sticking it to The Man” than they are in invoking change for good. If people really want to help, here’s an idea: set up a gofundme account to pay for portapotties rather than fund some attorney’s vacation to Tahiti!
There are so many things people could do without breaking the law. And, while these starter suggestions might not fix everything from the get go, they’d at least get people pointed in the right direction, working together to find solutions that work for the greater good.
“Restricting resources at any step makes it less likely that those with that need will manage the long process back into society.”
There’s no evidence that feeding people in parks is necessary and sufficient for that long process.
The arrest was merely a theatrical display for moral preening by someone uninterested in the big picture, nothing more.
“The accusation that those who support the homeless think that short term solutions like feeding programs are all that is necessary is just false.”
And not an argument that anybody actually made.
Instead, when I pointed out was that the vast majority of homeless are mentally ill and that focusing energies on changing public law to allow feeding people like pigeons in the park is both demeaning and counterproductive.
“a very informed view that understands the multiple causes of homelessness and the complexity of helping the homeless put their lives back together.”
NO one argues otherwise.
Public park feeding is not a requirement, the topic here.
“What some fail to recognize is that the homeless have short term needs and long term needs.”
Straw man.
“Restricting resources at any step makes it less likely that those with that need will manage the long process back into society.”
I doubt there’s evidence to this effect.
Restricting resources may in fact channel people into the right spots.
Pogo – the City of Phoenix channelled the feeding of the homeless away the direct downtown in an effort to disperse them. It was not effective.
Raff, it’s amazing to hear this pushback against these churches and ministries that help the homeless by street feeding. I thought they were in favor of churches and charities doing so instead of the government.
So true BFM. A short term need of every human mentally ill or not is to eat. What do the people who advocate a ‘tough love’ approach to the homeless think the homeless will do when they are hungry and there is no food? Work? Who will hire them? Would there be enough employers who are willing to hire a vagrant mentally ill or drug user/alcoholic? If they get fed they won’t steal and panhandle less. Again as you said BFM, everyone here recognizes there is a big picture to be solved.
Kelley, I think most people I recognize that there is a “bigger picture”. I’m certain all of us want to solve this problem not just put a bandaid on it. In the meantime, these people are hungry, and people are feeding them. As someone who cares, such as yourself, what do you think is a realistic solution to the homeless issue? And how do we Americans help to enact such solutions?
@Annie: “I think most people I recognize that there is a “bigger picture”.”
I agree with you. The accusation that those who support the homeless think that short term solutions like feeding programs are all that is necessary is just false.
I know of no one who actually claims that feeding programs are all that is necessary. But we hear lots of accusations that those who advocate feeding programs do not realize that more is required. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you actually talk with people like those at Martha’s table of the DC Central kitchen, who actually devote their time to feeding the homeless, I know you will find a very informed view that understands the multiple causes of homelessness and the complexity of helping the homeless put their lives back together.
What some fail to recognize is that the homeless have short term needs and long term needs. Restricting resources at any step makes it less likely that those with that need will manage the long process back into society.
@Pogo believe it or not, I’m writing that as a bleeding social liberal. I love helping others get to a better place. I love it so much that I’ve dedicated my life to it. However, most liberals fail to understand that people like Mr. Abbott, while they have good intentions and want to do great things, are only putting barely effective bandaid on something that needs major surgery and teamwork on a bigger scale than they’re willing to work with. It’s so very frustrating to try and reason with people who just don’t get the bigger picture.
Nick,
Your guess is incorrect. I knew the Mayor was a Dem, but I didn’t care. You are the one who has attempted to make this a partisan issue. It is really about restricting organizations like these churches and charitable organizations from helping many homeless people.
Kelley,
if the charities are providing food on the beach, there are many public restrooms available to the homeless and the beach visitors. Any restriction on a public place location seems to be an attempt to dissuade the target population from that location, in my opinion. Are you suggesting that the public bathrooms along the beach front are not available to the homeless?
” …even a person like you can understand ”
The sure sign that illogic is about to be presented.
“Some choose not to use the resources but may be convinced with thoughtful intervention.”
So why support decisions that are harmful in the long run?
It’s not unreasonable to conclude you do not want them to get better.
“And some for one reason or another cannot make reasonable, informed decisions to help themselves out of homelessness.”
And…? And…?
This clearly requires institutionalization.
It is in fact only a tiny portion of homeless for whom your methods are ‘efficient and effective.’
For the majority it makes things worse.
So why do you support failure?
“…the fact that resources for homeless are typically underfunded:”
Underfunded by what measure, that you could always spend more on it?
Instead it is a clear indication of the failure of your method.
““Some choose not to use the resources but may be convinced with thoughtful intervention.”
So why support decisions that are harmful in the long run?”
What, exactly is harmful about reaching out to inform the homeless of resource available and to convince them to use those resources.
““And some for one reason or another cannot make reasonable, informed decisions to help themselves out of homelessness.” …This clearly requires institutionalization.”
It seems to me that forced institutionalization may be an alternative for some homeless, but that is far from clear. That is why we have commitment procedures.
“It is in fact only a tiny portion of homeless for whom your methods are ‘efficient and effective.’
For the majority it makes things worse.”
In fact your my procedures are only an extension of what those on both sides claim to support – resources like shelters. I am not aware of anyone who has been made worse by having shelter, clean clothing, job training, health care, and yes food through food stamps or feeding in public areas.
These resources support both the short term goal of getting through the day and long term goals of returning to society.
““…the fact that resources for homeless are typically underfunded:”
Underfunded by what measure, that you could always spend more on it?”
When I mention that these resources are typically underfunded I am pointing out that there are frequently more individuals who need help than capacity to help them. That seem like a very direct measure of underfunding to me.
@Kelley:
” There is nothing unreasonable about any of these expectations.”
Exactly. But the left cannot help themselves, even though what they advocate is harmful.
I think some people at trying to ressurect the incivility of a couple days ago. Why is this such a pattern?
Made a lotta money exposing liars. Working on a case right now exposing a big liar.
@Nick: “Made a lotta money exposing liars. Working on a case right now exposing a big liar.”
Uh Ohhh, does that mean we have to stick to the facts now?
I just had a little vomit in my mouth. That sometimes happens when I see people lie. I hate liars.
“Unfortunately, many of the homeless are paranoid schizophrenics and it is a viscious cycle.”
Shelly,
I had to reread that as I thought you were talking about a certain subset in this blog. Who knows, maybe one of the 19 are homeless.
It is NOT against the law to feed the homeless in Fort Lauderdale if those who are providing meals also provide a portable toilet (a good idea – if you’re going to feed dozens of people, where exactly do you think they go to have a BM after you’ve fed them?), obtain a permit OR permission from the landowners where they’re distributing food, and be spaced 500 feet apart from other outreaches. There is nothing unreasonable about any of these expectations.
Just following good, solid Republican principles.