Baylen Linnekin has a long essay at Reason’s Hit and Run about the common problem of American cities trying to prohibit people from feeding the homeless in public parks, where many of them are likely to be found. He notes that this goes at least back to the early 20s, when New York City police beat a group of unemployed men being fed by a group of elderly women in Bryant Park. But more recently:
Starting in about 2006, several cities began arresting, fining, and otherwise oppressing private individuals and nonprofits that feed the homeless and less fortunate. A 2006 NPR report referred to a Las Vegas ban on feeding the homeless—a ban challenged by the Nevada state ACLU chapter—as “among the first of its kind in the country.”
The suit went on for four years. As the Nevada ACLU recounted in announcing a pending settlement between the group and the city in 2010..
Terms of the Las Vegas settlement require that police may no longer ban and ticket those feeding or being fed “unless there is evidence of unlawful activity, and in those cases a valid arrest must be made or a citation issued.” Which is as it should be.
Still, in spite of the suit and settlement, feeding bans like the one initiated in Las Vegas appear to be growing in number around the country.
I blogged at Hit & Run last summer about a ban in Orlando—the first of the most recent spate of such big-city laws. In that case, members of the anti-war group Food Not Bombs had been arrested for feeding the homeless in Orlando city parks.
Since then, other cities have followed suit. In New York City, for example, Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned food donations to the homeless earlier this year “because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content.”
The ACLU has been filing suits all over the country on this, and winning them once they get to court.
30 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
eric
June 13, 2012 at 9:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Holy crap that’s draconian. And here I felt bad and cynical about giving them food instead of money, since the liberal bit of my soul was uncomfortable with the implication (i.e., I’m assuming they can’t be responsible with their own resources just because they’re poor). This blows the doors off my own cynicism.
Gregory in Seattle
June 13, 2012 at 9:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Because, apparently, homeless people are just pigeons in disguise: feed them, and they will stick around in the park, pooping on the statues. Or something.
dogmeat
June 13, 2012 at 9:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s interesting, here in southern AZ we have a lot of homeless people. I think it is a combination of the weather and a very serious “fuck you, I got mine” attitude. Whenever the topic comes up I have students who insist that they saw a “homeless guy” get into a [insert expensive car here] and drive away. Mostly for my conservative students the tendency is to believe that the homeless are somehow pulling a scam, getting a “free ride,” etc. Also they seem to fly in the face of the “everything is okay here, nothing to worry about” mentality.
Shplane
June 13, 2012 at 9:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s things like this that have convinced me that Skeletor is real, and he is secretly running the world. How else could something so cartoonishly evil happen?
Larry
June 13, 2012 at 9:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Because feeding the poor in public areas brings home the reality that there are poor people who do need help. This makes the pols in city hall and those who espouse the line that there really aren’t poor people very uncomfortable. So rather than finding solutions to the problems of poverty, it is simply banned from public view.
Now, they can get back to the real business at hand: making sure the wealthy become even more so.
danielkim
June 13, 2012 at 9:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Being arrested for feeding the homeless is a desirable outcome for any Christian.
“All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” -Matthew 10:22 NIV
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven….” -Matthew 5:10-12 NIV
Churches should encourage and support feeding the homeless and giving aid to the destitute, especially and particularly in the face of laws against doing so. They should, of course, take any reasonable action to be in compliance with the law, help maintain order and peace, and see to necessary sanitation and food safety. When all reasonable and necessary requirements are met, and the only issue is that of mercy, churches should stand firm against the law, and be willing to accept punishment knowing that it is to be celebrated as a blessing and privilege to serve Christ in such a way.
Some years ago, our church engaged in a homeless ministry to help bridge the gap in food assistance that occurred toward the end of each month, when benefits would be running out for everyone, and the last dollars of peoples’ paychecks were being spent. Our city of Las Cruces, NM was very cooperative and made every effort to help us. They basically looked the other way when we had hundreds of people gathering and eating at our picnic. A nearby fire station, against all regulations I’m sure, provided us with electricity, and the city delivered port-a-potties at no charge. Occasionally, in the early days of our project, police would cruise by, but there was never trouble, and they never confronted us or our guests. I wanted to cite this example and praise our city for its helpful attitude.
For their part, the guests at the picnic always helped set up and clean up. They unloaded tables and chairs from our trucks, picked up and bagged trash, and washed down the tables and re-loaded the trucks. Some would accompany us to the church to help with washing dishes, often late into the night. We were able to make sure that they did not lose their place in the shelter because of their lateness. The sense of contribution and belonging was an important part of the ministry.
Aliasalpha
June 13, 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Am I the only one wondering how long it’ll be before there’s a law that simply says “Fuck it, just kill ‘em” or lets anyone with a net worth in the 7 figure range hunt the homeless for sport?
Or maybe an ominous black truck from International Electromatics offering food & tea but turning the homeless into an emotionless cyborg army… Hmm that one sounds familiar somehow.
d cwilson
June 13, 2012 at 10:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And don’t even think of giving a homeless guy a large Coke!
d cwilson
June 13, 2012 at 10:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Nah. Those passages were all about people who fight to get publicly funded Christmas displays.
Gregory in Seattle
June 13, 2012 at 10:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@larry #5 – That, exactly. We saw a similar sentiment during the Occupy protests: many cities allowed the encampments but NOT, for the love of Holy Capitalism, in the retail/banking core. The one in Seattle was forced — pretty brutally — out of downtown, where they had set up in a park within easy view of most of the stores doing Christmas business.
eric
June 13, 2012 at 10:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dogmeat – I saw exactly that sort of event happen in Berkeley in the ’90′s, fairly regularly. However, it didn’t stop me from giving food. Particularly since many of the more, um, profit-minded street folk would just refuse it.
It honestly wouldn’t have bothered me if they had taken it – having my can of beans or bag of apples resold was not exactly a major concern – but in reality, those who don’t need it rarely take it even when offered.
Gregory in Seattle
June 13, 2012 at 10:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@danielkim #6 – If only more people of faith were like that.
Unfortunately, Christianity has come to be dominated by the “gospel of prosperity,” which holds that if you are poor, sick, homeless, etc., it is because you lack faith and God is punishing you, and it would endanger my immortal soul if I went against the Almighty and fed the hungry, or clothed the naked, or housed the homeless, or offered refuge to someone who was being abused. If your faith is strong then God will reward you with a loving spouse, a happy family, a beautiful home in the suburbs, a fancy car and a membership at an exclusive country club. Because God wants you to be rich and handsome. Praise!
raven
June 13, 2012 at 10:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Soylent Green.
We have a few homeless around here. Every year one or two of them die of hypothermia in winter in the park or behind a dumpster. It doesn’t even get that cold here but it happens anyway.
Doug Little
June 13, 2012 at 10:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well that’s my WTF moment of the day. Just out of curiosity, what is the argument against feeding the homeless in these cases?
D. C. Sessions
June 13, 2012 at 10:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m curious how this works — is food banned in the park, or only eating it? As in, you can carry your groceries from the store on one side to your home on the other but not consume any?
Or is it the transfer of food from one person to another, as in getting busted for sharing a sandwich?
Or is there some sort of “HOMELESS” tattoo that the undesirables have that makes them Untouchables (or Unfeedables) and it’s legal to share food with anyone but them?
eric
June 13, 2012 at 10:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Greg: you forgot the classics – Mercedes Benz, color TV, and night on the town.
Artor
June 13, 2012 at 10:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Am I the only one wondering how long it’ll be before there’s a law that simply says “Fuck it, just kill ‘em” or lets anyone with a net worth in the 7 figure range hunt the homeless for sport?”
I’m sure some people long for the opportunity to solve the homeless problem the way Vlad Dracul did. You know- the original Dracula. Transylvania had alot of poor & homeless, so he threw a big feast and invited them all to X-mas dinner. Then he bolted the doors shut & burned the hall to the ground. Problem solved!
Trebuchet
June 13, 2012 at 11:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Doug Little:
Basically that it attracts them to the area.
Pen
June 13, 2012 at 11:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s beyond insane! I agree with Gregory from Seattle. It’s talking about people as if they were pigeons, and we already talk about pigeons as if they were rats or cockroaches. What’s next? A bounty on poisoning the homeless in the park?
Modusoperandi
June 13, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Now, look, if you feed them they’ll only follow you home, and then you have to walk them and feed them and take care of them. Then they get old and die and you have to explain to your kids about death. And nobody wants that.
In the end, it’s better for all involved (particularly for the people who might see them and be uncomfortable) for them to just sleep under the bridge. You know, the one that the cops won’t let them sleep under.
Remember the end of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, where the Samaritan was fined for helping the injured man? Neither do I. But that must’ve happened.
wscott
June 13, 2012 at 11:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Larry #5: You’re not wrong, but I think there’s more too it than that. Many of the cities passing anti-feeding laws are blue dots led by liberal democratic mayors/councils. And many of them are spending millions of dollars to try and help the homeless. Less than they were before the recession certainly, and you can debate whether or not they’re doing “enough” – but many of them are trying.
You may have heard a similar argument over whether it’s more effective to give money to homeless people on the street vs. donating the same money to programs that help get the homeless off the streets, into homes, etc. There are many who argue that the latter is far more effective; sortof a variation on the “give a man a fish vs teach him to fish” argument. There is a similar idea for feeding, which is that feeding the homeless in the park provides a disincentive for them to go to shelters where they can get not only food, but assistance, treatment, etc.
Note: I’m not necessarily saying I agree with the above argument; I haven’t done enough research to say. But the idea is being pushed mainly by people who have devoted their entire lives to helping the homeless, so I’m not prepared to dismiss their argument out of hand.
Area Man
June 13, 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
While I appreciate that the good folks at Reason are highlighting this injustice, the typical libertarian solution is to privatize the parks and every other public space, and therefore give the rich owners 100% control over who can or can’t be there and what they can or cannot do. I think it’s safe to say that the owners of privatized parks would not be thrilled with homeless people loitering in their parks, much less using them as a gathering place for free food. And the good folks at Reason would side with the owners over the homeless people every time.
Tsu Dho Nimh
June 13, 2012 at 12:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have no objection to various groups feeding the homeless … provided they do it in their own neighborhood.
What happens to the nearby neighborhoods is they become campsites for the ones waiting for the next meal, and along with that comes a high level of petty theft, mail theft, breaking and entering, and other so-called “minor crimes”.
When you have to get a PO box because your mail is opened and scattered before you get home, when you have to chase squatters waiting for the free dinners off your patio (inside a 6-foot block wall) several times a week, when you come home to find yet another break-in has happened … you tend to lose your charitable feelings.
d cwilson
June 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Just out of curiosity, who decides which neighborhoods are designated “homeless free zones”? Is it based on average per capita income?
laurentweppe
June 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As a bishop once said:
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.”
Maybe some good followers of the anti-communist gospels realized that giving food to the poor may lead one to question why the poor has no food, and if even a Roman Catholic bishop can fall on the slippery slope which leads from charity to hardcore bolshevism, then it’s better if no one has to face the temptation to ask the dreaded question.
danielkim
June 13, 2012 at 2:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@laurentweppe:
That’s a great point. Engaging in compassionate acts should lead to an awareness of injustice, and a desire to promote justice. It all rolls downhill from there, I guess. Before you know it, you’re examining the economic and political origins of poverty.
At this point, the magnitude of the problem overwhelms. One starts to think: “What have I gotten into? Must I now dedicate myself to changing my city and my society? Where does it end?” It becomes frightening, since the initial positive impulse to alleviate suffering (and also create good feelings for Jesus, I must add) can reveal this huge burden.
It can expand one’s consciousness, though. Feeding the poor can transform “the poor” into “people” and then into “neighbors” and then into “family.” Knowing that members of your family can suffer, however awkward the relationship is with those family members, makes it hard to vote for cutbacks in services.
interrobang
June 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I believe an ancient ethicist by the name of Tarfon actually answered your ethical dilemma, when he said “It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.”
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
June 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lifetime Robert O’Brien award?
danielkim
June 13, 2012 at 8:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@interrobang:
Tarfon, huh? He was, what, an Andorian or something?
michaelcrichton
June 14, 2012 at 2:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I particularly like how some of the commenters assert that this is a Conspiracy by Nanny Statists to Discredit Private Charity. As if the owners of the fully privatized parks, roads, and cities that Randroids hold up as an ideal wouldn’t do the same.