NationStates Jolt Archive

Get this: volunteering to feed the homeless in public is a crime in many cities! WTF! The Food Not Bombs organization has been the target of city government crackdowns for its advocacy that we should beat our swords into plowshares, which it demonstrates by actually giving a damn about other people. Apparently, we're still not ready to try to live together peacefully, and decide that people should starve in the streets...

Food Not Bombs Found Not Guilty for Feeding the Hungry in Orlando

ORLANDO, FLORIDA - Food Not Bombs volunteer Eric Montanez was found not guilty by a jury for the "crime" of feeding more than 24 people in an Orlando, Florida city park. He faced a fine of $500 and sixty days in jail. This week city police also threatened to arrest Food Not Bombs volunteers in a several American cities. Police backed down this past weekend in Albuquerque and West Palm Beach although they still claim they may arrest the volunteers in the future. Food Not Bombs volunteers in Cleveland and Nashville have also been told they must move their programs to an area out of public view.

After a day of the Ladle Fest Protest in Orlando, Florida the verdict was Not guilty after a jury ruled this Tuesday for the man on trial for violating the city's rules when it comes to feeding the homeless.
Food Not Bombs activist Eric Montanez, 22, is with the global movement Food Not Bombs. City governments in West Palm Beach, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Venice, California, and Nashville have announced efforts to shut down Food Not Bombs. The city of San Francsico made over 1,000 arrests during the 1980's and 90's. Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Commission called for an end to the arrests.

Food Not Bombs organized most of the food relief effort for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina and provided food to the rescue workers at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The movement that started in 1980 has chapters in nearly 1,000 cities in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Africa and Australia. This all volunteer effort shares free vegetarian food to anyone without restriction. They are also dedicated to nonviolence and support animal rights, ecological, peace and social justice issues as well as providing meals to the hungry.

Eric was the first person arrested earlier this year on charges that he broke the law by feeding more than 24 people in Lake Eola Park. Eric Montanez testified that the law is unfair and criminalizes homelessness. Orlando Food Not Bombs organized a large all day meal called Ladle Fest feeding people in defiance of the law at Lake Eola Park. The protest ends Wednesday, October 10th.
For more information visit:
http://www.foodnotbombs.net
###

Not Guilty Verdict In Homeless Feeding Trial
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/10/9/verdict_homeless_feeding_trial.html

What's the purpose of this law? To try and obscure the problem of homelessness from public view?

Not a great way of doing it, so there must be another reason...

So long as no one gives them change. ;)

The government must support the homeless, not the people.

Also, if those homeless people got off their lazy ass and actually get a job, they wouldn't have to beg for food.

That is so severely fucked.

Food Not Bombs is such a great organization. It's bad enough the government lets people starve on the streets, it's worse that they want them even worse off than they are.

I always tried to help out the homeless when I was in Seattle whether it be a couple bucks, a piece of my sandwich, or by pouring them a healthy dose of whiskey from my flask into their change cup.

What's the purpose of this law? To try and obscure the problem of homelessness from public view?

Yep.

Not a great way of doing it, so there must be another reason...

Nope.

The government must support the homeless, not the people.

What are you, some kind of socialist? :p

The only possible reason I've found is the accountability of the servers and where they get the food:

http://houstonpress.com/2004-11-25/news/free-lunch/

As Anatole France said, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

The government doesn't give a damn about the poor, hungry and needy, and now they are actively taking steps to make their lives even more miserable. WTF is wrong with the world, anyway? Of course, you'll never hear about this on the mainstream news.

What are you, some kind of socialist? :p

Hey, I'm somewhat socialist, so I'm pretty damn pro the idea of people voluntarily helping others.

Why should we forbid it?

Hey, I'm somewhat socialist, so I'm pretty damn pro the idea of people voluntarily helping others.

Why should we forbid it?

*psst!* Just about everyone who has commented so far on this are undoubtedly unabashed socialists. It's a joke.

Sorry, but which law did they break? The only one I can think of is that their event is classed by local law as a festival or something and therefore needs a license before it can go ahead. Could be distribution of food without a health/food standards certificate I suppose.

Hmm... this is really bizarre.

Hey, I'm somewhat socialist, so I'm pretty damn pro the idea of people voluntarily helping others.

Why should we forbid it?

Because if we keep giving food to homeless people, we will have nothing left to throw at eachother. *nod*

Because if we keep giving food to homeless people, we will have nothing left to throw at eachother. *nod*

You are possibly the most bizzare, and ridiculous person I have ever known (albeit, in a relative sense...). I like you.

Because if we keep giving food to homeless people, we will have nothing left to throw at eachother. *nod*
We could throw the homeless at each other instead. I hear there's a high probability that most of them are human. And humans are soft and squishy.

Orlando's hardly the only city with stupid laws along that vein. Austin, normally a fairly progressive city, came up with some really boneheaded ones over ten years ago. Making it illegal to sleep or prepare food on public property (with the exception of a couple parks) and making panhandling illegal. Though I suppose starving them all would take care of the homeless problem.:rolleyes:

They made it illegal here in Vegas to give food to the homeless too. So fucking stupid IMHO.

They made it illegal here in Vegas to give food to the homeless too. So fucking stupid IMHO.

Hrmmm... Must be a poorly hidden government conspiracy to secretly starve off the homeless population and thus rid itself of the problem.

Get this: volunteering to feed the homeless in public is a crime in many cities! WTF! The Food Not Bombs organization has been the target of city government crackdowns for its advocacy that we should beat our swords into plowshares, which it demonstrates by actually giving a damn about other people. Apparently, we're still not ready to try to live together peacefully, and decide that people should starve in the streets...
Some people actually want to live in a city that doesn't condone the 'urban outdoorsmen' crapping in your doorway. Give them shelters and they won't use them. So it's not unreasonable to ask that the bums be fed away from public areas.

Some people actually want to live in a city that doesn't condone the 'urban outdoorsmen' crapping in your doorway. Give them shelters and they won't use them. So it's not unreasonable to ask that the bums be fed away from public areas.

Have you ever seen a homeless shelter? They are run down, pieces of crap that are already overflowing. There are never enough. Of course, why the government would have any problem with a group that is taking time out of their lives to be *gasp* charitable to the downtrodden.

Right wing Christians talk about Jesus' compassion all the time, but when a group decided act in a decided Christ-like manner, city governments crack down on them. Let's stop pretending this has anything to do with "reasonability" or justice. This has everything to do with intolerance: the intolerance of both the poor and those who both believe in peace and decide to live that belief.

Have you ever seen a homeless shelter? They are run down, pieces of crap that are already overflowing. There are never enough. Of course, why the government would have any problem with a group that is taking time out of their lives to be *gasp* charitable to the downtrodden.

Right wing Christians talk about Jesus' compassion all the time, but when a group decided act in a decided Christ-like manner, city governments crack down on them. Let's stop pretending this has anything to do with "reasonability" or justice. This has everything to do with intolerance: the intolerance of both the poor and those who both believe in peace and decide to live that belief.
I have been volunteering at a homeless shelter every Thanksgiving since the kids got old enough to not come home every year. In fact, I usually get a couple of my hogs butchered to provide a little fresh meat.

I do it to help, not to be confrontational. I object to those that have ulterior motives in their charity. That wack-o group was not acting like Christians, they were acting like politicians.

On the other hand, there's no reason at all for the homeless to monopolize the spaces that are maintained by tax-payers dollars. Share, yes -- but not take-over. And I'm serious about the crapping in doorways... It has to stop and cities shouldn't allow that kind of behavior from anyone.

This is undoubtedly the most bullshit law I've ever heard of. Illegal to feed the homeless in public? So, if I'm eating my lunch in a public park and I just decide to share it with a homeless person, I could be arrested? Why am I thinking that wouldn't happen?

These laws could never withstand a real test in court -- as evidenced by the fact that the Food Not Bombs guy was found not guilty. Not guilty of bullshit, yeah. This is just another attempt by cities to sweep poverty under the rug, keep it hidden away, and pretend it doesn't exist, so they can stay on those 100 Best Places to Live lists. Fuck 'em.

EDIT: Here's a question for ya: If it's illegal to feed the homeless in public, then does that mean if a restaurant proprietor is a charitable person and decides once a week to let the homeless eat at his place for free, he could be arrested? If the argument is that his restaurant is private property, then what if it's a sidewalk cafe? Is he not allowed to seat homeless people at sidewalk tables? What if the homeless pay for their meal -- is the restaurant allowed to serve them then? As I said, total bullshit.

Don't even waste your time talking to Myrmidonisia. He's represents maybe 70% of everything that's wrong with America. If not for people like him, there wouldn't be so many homeless in our country.

I think he has a personal vendetta against me. Every time I post a thread, even if it is one that no sane person could disagree with (like this one), he posts and argues with me.

Have you ever seen a homeless shelter? They are run down, pieces of crap that are already overflowing. There are never enough. Of course, why the government would have any problem with a group that is taking time out of their lives to be *gasp* charitable to the downtrodden.

Right wing Christians talk about Jesus' compassion all the time, but when a group decided act in a decided Christ-like manner, city governments crack down on them. Let's stop pretending this has anything to do with "reasonability" or justice. This has everything to do with intolerance: the intolerance of both the poor and those who both believe in peace and decide to live that belief.

Don't even waste your time talking to Myrmidonisia. He's represents maybe 70% of everything that's wrong with America. If not for people like him, there wouldn't be so many homeless in our country.

Don't even waste your time talking to Myrmidonisia. He's represents maybe 70% of everything that's wrong with America. If not for people like him, there wouldn't be so many homeless in our country.
What! Not 100%? How can you say that? Surely I represent at least 90% of what's wrong with America! I'm educated -- I vote my conscience -- I pay taxes on time -- and I don't cheat!

How can you say I'm only 70% of what's wrong! I object and should report you immediately!


Most of the homeless do need help. But it's not money or food alone. Some have had bad luck, but most need to be institutionalized.

What! Not 100%? How can you say that? Surely I represent at least 90% of what's wrong with America! I'm educated -- I vote my conscience -- I pay taxes on time -- and I don't cheat!

How can you say I'm only 70% of what's wrong! I object and should report you immediately!
It's only 70%. Sorry, but somehow you always seem to fall short. You'll have to try harder.

Most of the homeless do need help. But it's not money or food alone. Some have had bad luck, but most need to be institutionalized.
On that I agree, but that is not the fault of Food Not Bombs. Rather it is the fault of federal and state goverments that decided in the late 1970s to stop funding state run mental hospitals, leaving thousands of people who are not capable of fending for themselves out on the street.

No, I say kudos to Food Not Bombs for not allowing complacent Americans to ignore the condition of those who are struggling to survive all around them, while they tool around in their SUVs or whatever, congratulating themselves on what nice people they are, pretending they care as long as they don't have see what they pretend to care about.

If there were fewer homeless people in the streets, there would be nothing for Food Not Bombs to do. If people don't want to see crowds of homeless people eating soup in public parks, let them -- as voters who vote their consciences -- pressure their governments to do something about the lack of hospitals and underfunding of anti-poverty programs.

The big difference between you and me, Myrm, is that I don't feel like I've voted my conscience if I don't use my vote to benefit others, not just myself. And I don't feel good about living in cities that hide the poor rather than feed and house them. And I don't think streets that have had poor people swept off them look all that clean.

Both of you (Myr and Mur) have good points.

In many ways, by giving *many* homeless people food or money, you will stop them from going to government programs made to help them (which many refuse due to an unwillingness to give up alcohol). This is because they will be able to eat, drink, etc., without having to give up on alcohol. Granted, giving food rather than money = better, since at least it will definitely go towards their eating food (if all they received from everyone was food, then they would not be able to get alcohol, which solves the giving-up-on-alcohol issue).
Of course, that doesn't matter for those who are homeless for other reasons. Those who are simply in a transitional state that happens to be homeless due to bad luck, for instance, are likely to benefit from food and monetary donations. Likelihood of benefit for those who are mentally ill but not alcoholic varies.
For a government that is trying to force homeless people into their programs, making such donations illegal is a useful step. However, most people will ignore such laws, which makes the legality irrelevant for the government and problematic for the charitable people. On the other hand, for a government with no such programs, it's just a sucky law all around. Finally, if you don't believe that the government has a right to step in in the first place, or to try to make their programs quasi-compulsory, then you're going to have issues with the logic behind the law even if the government is trying to help homeless people.

You are possibly the most bizzare, and ridiculous person I have ever known (albeit, in a relative sense...). I like you.

Flatterer. :)

I would imagine it's because there are shelters and food kitchens already, because they don't want people to poison the homeless (there are sick fucks out there), and because, frankly, handing out food in the park will encourage them to congregate there rather than to seek proper food and shelter facilities... which takes the use of the park away from other citizens.

The other citizens could always grab a free meal while they are there.

I would imagine it's because there are shelters and food kitchens already, because they don't want people to poison the homeless (there are sick fucks out there), and because, frankly, handing out food in the park will encourage them to congregate there rather than to seek proper food and shelter facilities... which takes the use of the park away from other citizens.

Isn't Jury Nullification a wonderful thing?

Thank God for the Constitution and the original SCJs.

Wow I did not know that law existed. :: still doesn't feed homeless ::

I would imagine it's because there are shelters and food kitchens already, because they don't want people to poison the homeless (there are sick fucks out there), and because, frankly, handing out food in the park will encourage them to congregate there rather than to seek proper food and shelter facilities... which takes the use of the park away from other citizens.

How does it take the use of the park away from other citizens? :confused:

when did it become a crime to actually give a shit about your fellow man? This law, and others like it, is absolutely vile. If I found out the Bangor had a similar law, I'd go out of my way to violate it.

What's the purpose of this law? To try and obscure the problem of homelessness from public view?

Not a great way of doing it, so there must be another reason...

The homeless have no money, therefore they do not buy untolds amounts of products like everyone else does. If they are noticed people will spend money HELPING them... Instead of buying useless products from Businesses.

The Homeless are bad for business, therefore the homeless dying is a good thing.
-----
Sick isn't it. That's basicly why though.

And helping them makes you an EBIL PINKO COMMIE!

Hrmmm... Must be a poorly hidden government conspiracy to secretly starve off the homeless population and thus rid itself of the problem.
Easiest Conspiracy to do, just do nothing and it takes care of itself.

How does it take the use of the park away from other citizens? :confused:

They have to see and even...smell the homeless.

For shame!
pah!
bah humbug!

I thought Australia had weird laws :p

What's the legal definition of a Homeless person there?

I thought Australia had weird laws :p

You mean America V .5?

You mean America V .5?

Yes, Mr Johnny Coward is trying to that!

Well, everyone knows you shouldn't feed wild animals. Especially wild humans!

Do you remember what happened when you gave them change?
For a reminder:
http://allsp.com/ (click on season 11, night of the living homeless) :)

Well, if the homeless are congregating in great numbers and start camping out in sections of a park, especially a small one, then other folks can't really use it, no? If they sleep in and around the playground, can the kids use the equipment?

That sounds just a little slippery slope. It's sort of a big step from "Let me get a meal at the park," to "Wonder if I should set up my cardboard box on the jungle gym."

The other citizens could always grab a free meal while they are there.

How does it take the use of the park away from other citizens? :confused:

Well, if the homeless are congregating in great numbers and start camping out in sections of a park, especially a small one, then other folks can't really use it, no? If they sleep in and around the playground, can the kids use the equipment?

Well, if the homeless are congregating in great numbers and start camping out in sections of a park, especially a small one, then other folks can't really use it, no? If they sleep in and around the playground, can the kids use the equipment?

I can see your point of view...but frankly, they don't have much of a choice given how poor homeless shelters and the like usually are. If we were to seriously improve those and actually help them the way we should there wouldn't be this problem.

Well, everyone knows you shouldn't feed wild animals. Especially wild humans!

Do you remember what happened when you gave them change?
For a reminder:
http://allsp.com/ (click on season 11, night of the living homeless) :)

Dang, I mentioned that right after the OP, and no one noticed... Guess I should have added some linkage.

Government seems to be obsessed with the "sweep the garbage under the carpet" approach because it doesn't involve any real effort.

"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." -- Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara, former Archbishop of Olinda and Recife

"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." -- Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara, former Archbishop of Olinda and Recife

Damn straight. I love that quote.

That sounds just a little slippery slope. It's sort of a big step from "Let me get a meal at the park," to "Wonder if I should set up my cardboard box on the jungle gym."

It's not as slippery slope as you might think. Anyhow, I would think that the main objection local governments would have to people handing out meals honestly is that there's no control, and that those who are actually in need may be either unwittingly (because of poor food handling/refrigeration) or purposefully sickened with bad food.

It's not as slippery slope as you might think. Anyhow, I would think that the main objection local governments would have to people handing out meals honestly is that there's no control, and that those who are actually in need may be either unwittingly (because of poor food handling/refrigeration) or purposefully sickened with bad food.

Then make them get food handler's licenses or something.

"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." -- Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara, former Archbishop of Olinda and Recife

Wow!

And all this time here I was thinking that it was Leonard Nimoy in Civ IV.

Silly me.


:)

It's not as slippery slope as you might think. Anyhow, I would think that the main objection local governments would have to people handing out meals honestly is that there's no control, and that those who are actually in need may be either unwittingly (because of poor food handling/refrigeration) or purposefully sickened with bad food.

I've been behind enough fry lines to know for a fact that just having a license on a wall doesn't mean there's any real control there either.

As for someone purposely passing bad food as some sort of sick attack on the homeless, you should see what happens in regular eateries when food gets sent back..........or if it's a cop and the server has a hard on for the law......happens enough to make one think twice about eating out at all.

And funny thing is, most government opposition vanishes with the proper application of silver coins in the government till for licenses and permits......

Hey, I'm libertarian, and if people want to help the homeless with their own money, fair play to them, just do a good job of it.