Feeding the poor or Enabling homelessness?

[SoulBiter]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/04/0-y ... s-against/

Just seems crazy that you cant feed the poor.

Supporters of the strict laws say that allowing programs like Abbott’s encourages homelessness. Cal Deal, a 65-year-old former journalist who videotapes homeless people in the city and says they commit crimes, cause sanitation problems and need more help than simply food.

"The people feeding them are enablers, and they enable the homeless by making their lives easier,"

Just wow...

[Orlion]

Look, SB, the Porta-Potty industry needs the business! So you can feed the hungry, so long as you grease the palms of the legislators' friends!

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Like most city leaders and/or city councils, Ft. Lauderdale really wishes the homeless would, at best, go to some other city or, at worst, just die. No, they will never say that but deep down that is what I suspect they typically think.

Not all homeless people are unemployed bums or alcoholics/drug-users who have been rotated out of the shelter this week.

[Ananda]

We have an issue here with organised crime sending in 'homeless' beggars to the country and taking the money. When you visit sweden and chance to see a homeless person, know that they are probably from romania or the like and part of an organised crime scheme. A reporter watched them and the routines they did. It was like shifts at a job with the person leaving the shift to walk to a meeting place, hand over the money to a guy in a bmw, get in and they drive off.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

They were doing that here in Dallas until the local TV (channel 8 ) did the same thing--watched a couple of panhandlers all day until the panhandlers turned over their money to a guy in a truck who, in turn, handed them a bag of food and took them to a rent-by-the-week hotel. This guy in the truck had a handful of people for whom he did this and was probably clearing $1,000 per week from it. Not a ton of money, true, but it is pure profit for him and since it was all cash he didn't have to declare it as income.

[SoulBiter]

Like most city leaders and/or city councils, Ft. Lauderdale really wishes the homeless would, at best, go to some other city or, at worst, just die. No, they will never say that but deep down that is what I suspect they typically think.

Not all homeless people are unemployed bums or alcoholics/drug-users who have been rotated out of the shelter this week.

True statements. Those that show up for a free meal, are typically those that need a meal. Having fed the homeless, its usually pretty easy to tell who needs a meal and who doesn't and the majority that stand in line for food, really need it.

I was really put out by the statement that "being hungry is a great motivator for them to get out of town" and that feeding the poor "enables more people to be poor". People that truly believe that way better hope they never find that they have lost everything because when you have, you find yourself in these lines.

[Orlion]

I was really put out by the statement that "being hungry is a great motivator for them to get out of town" and that feeding the poor "enables more people to be poor". People that truly believe that way better hope they never find that they have lost everything because when you have, you find yourself in these lines.

Agreed. No one (sane, anyway) wants to be so poor that they can not afford to eat.

[lorin]

I am probably not going to be popular in my response here but what the hell. I think this article was badly skewed. The fact is that the homeless DO require more than day to day stop and drop feeding. They require services....health, sanitation , psychiatric, assistance with benefit applications and on and on. People living on the beach and being fed by well meaning advocates does not help them. First of all, homeless need a permanent address in order to get those benefits and John Smith, Fort Lauderdale Beach does not do it. And they are right, feeding people on the beach or in the streets enables them to remain homeless and candidates for an early death.

That being said, I believe these outreach organizations have a place. They need to work with these folks to bring them into shelter and eventually get them addresses and supportive services. In NYC people are encouraged not to feed the homeless BUT you can buy coupons that entitle that person to a meal at an agency. When someone panhandles you give them one of the coupons, which also entitles them to a subway ride. If a person is truly hungry they will utilize it and go to the agency where there are trained staff to assist. Certainly it doesn't work for every homeless, like those living below ground and such, whose mental health issues prevent them from taking advantage of services.

Regarding the motivation of city council for putting this in place, I don't know. Maybe they want to drive them out of town or maybe not. I don't think it matters. As long as Fort Lauderdale is providing adequate services for the homeless, that is all that matters.

[wayfriend]

"The people feeding them are enablers, and they enable the homeless by making their lives easier,"

This is a great example of a phenomenon you see everywhere in politics. I call it You Can Make Anything Sound Bad.

People often comment that if Obama cured cancer, the FOX News would report on how he's putting doctors out of work. That's YCMASB in action.

YCMASB says, "You're not fighting Ebola, you're encouraging Africans to have poor hygiene!"

Spotting YCMASB isn't always easy. However, if you see someone who fails to acknowledge that there's even another side to an issue, you can probably be sure YCMASB is probably at work, because YCMASB requires pretending the good side of anything doesn't even exist. Or, if you think that the supposedly negative consequence is far overblown, then YCMASB may be around.

However, once you are confident that YCMASB is in action, you know two things. First, that whatever argument is used to support YCMASB doesn't really matter, because the only thing that matters is how B it sounds. Second, that the perpetrator of YCMASB is very much opposed to the A involved, and has few scruples about how he opposes it.

[SoulBiter]

They do require more than a once in a while feeding. Yet many of these groups have been feeding the poor on a daily/weekly basis since the 90's. I would never get behind any ordinance that makes it illegal to give someone that is hungry something to eat.

It also doesn't escape my notice that many of these cities are doing everything they can to get them to leave, not to fix any underlying issues. The idea being, lets make it VERY difficult to be homeless in (insert city here). What they need to do is build, staff and maintain proper facilities to provide treatment, rehabilitation, and education to help these individuals get back on their feet and become contributing members of society again, or at least be treated for the issues that put them on the street in the first place.

If you become homeless tonight in Ft Lauderdale there is no place open that will take you.

1. You must call 211 and they will direct you to wait at 2:30pm at a designated spot and a bus will take you to a shelter. If you have a job this of course will be a problem because you are at work at 2:30PM.

2. Lets say you decide to skip work and get the bus. The bus will take you to one of three places. The first may be salvation Army and you will wait in a long line and if they have a spot you will get a cot in a non-air-conditioned open area with 45 other people. You will be let out at 5am without a shower or breakfast. if you have a job or are looking for a job you will show up to work or try to get work and you stink. Oh and you have to figure out how to get to this job.... on foot.

3. You may be shipped out to Hollywood or Pompano for a temporary stay and there is no guarantee you will get in and so you could get stranded off MLK blvd. Most do not want to chance that kind of help because taking them out of their familiar area is not desirable especially if they have physical or mental problems or are elderly or women.
Again, not good if you have a job or are looking for a job.

So after a few days and nights of no AC, walking the streets and no showers you become one of the chronically homeless.

But lets say you actually get into a shelter!!! WOOOHOOO!!! Oh wait....
Its for three days only and this process starts all over again the next day. Securing a roof over your head and looking for food ends up taking a good part of the day and pretty much eliminates job seeking or job keeping.

Ft. Lauderdale is not the only city to embrace new ordinances that criminalize people for being homeless. Scores of cities, including Columbia, Palo Alto, Miami, Raleigh, Tampa, Harrisburg, and others have enacted measures that render homeless people, simply trying to survive, as criminals.

[Ananda]

Why not just avoid the middle man and, you know, pay taxes for a social safety net?

[Morning]

I'm still on the index page. How can you criminalize something that cannot be blamed on the accused?

[wayfriend]

It also doesn't escape my notice that many of these cities are doing everything they can to get them to leave, not to fix any underlying issues.

Like I said, YCMASB means nothing except that they really have it our for [in this case] the homeless. What they are really saying is, "Get dese bums ouda here!"

Why not just avoid the middle man and, you know, pay taxes for a social safety net?

Because they don't actually want to help the homeless. See above.

How can you criminalize something that cannot be blamed on the accused?

The ubiquity of "Get a job you bum" shows that they are quite well and truly blamed. But Soulbiter does a great job (nod) of showing what people can be up against.

[Zarathustra]

I'm getting the sense that not many here have actually read the article.

"The ordinance allows for legal, clean and safe distribution of food to the homeless," said Fort Lauderdale Police Department Det. DeAnna Greenlaw. "For example, if a minister, priest or member of clergy wishes to provide food to the homeless at their establishment (I.e community hall, church or gathering place) they can do so if the proper facilities, as listed in the ordinance, are in place."

No one is outlawing giving food to the homeless. They're setting up guidelines so that the community doesn't become trashed in the process. Homeless people piss and shit in public. If you feed them, that's going to be a pile of poop somewhere. Is it really too much to insist that if you're going to be providing the stuff that will soon be public poop, that you also provide a port-a-potty? Or how about just feeding the homeless in your church? Is your church too good for the homeless? You don't want them using the church bathroom?

The regulations enacted in Fort Lauderdale state that no two indoor feeding sites can be within 500 feet of one another or on the same block; outdoor feeding programs require a permit or permission of the property owner and must provide portable toilets; and outdoor stations cannot be within 500 feet of residential properties.

Are those really unreasonable regulations? People serving paying customers have to jump through many more regulatory hoops. Why should a charity be exempt? If it's important enough to do, then it's important enough to do properly. No one wants 10,000 homeless* eating and then relieving themselves on their front law or place of business.

The YCMASB principle has been applied to this topic, apparently. It's really not that bad to insist that charitable people take some responsibility as they're giving out the freebies.

*[Yes, 10K homeless, as the article points out.]

[lorin]

I think what is clear here is that the homeless agencies in Fort Lauderdale are sub standard and need an overhaul to better meet the needs of the clients. The solution is NOT stop and DROP feeding. It helps no one. Better to enable local organizations to receive proper funding to provide appropriate care.

Not to worry. I would bet a year of my now non existent salary that within 6 months Legal Aid will take Fort Lauderdale to court and compel them to get on board, which is exactly what happened in NYC.

[Avatar]

It also doesn't escape my notice that many of these cities are doing everything they can to get them to leave, not to fix any underlying issues.

A common problem in many places in the world I think. Very good post.

Why not just avoid the middle man and, you know, pay taxes for a social safety net?

As much as I have no doubt the WF's reply is at least partially accurate, I think there are other factors as well. Including of course the Western capitalist public's strong aversion to tax.

Another factor is probably the aversion to being told what to do. The archetype of the "rugged individualist" is, I think, alive and well.

And finally, the US public in general, it appears, are a perhaps unusually charitable bunch. They're often justifiably proud of it too. I'm not aware of anywhere else with such a strong tradition of personal charity (perhaps religion inspired, but the recipients don't care), although no doubt there are others.

As such, there may be sort of an indignation in being "made" to help people, and a push-back against it...an opposite reaction perhaps.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Exactly. If I donate $100 to a charity to help some disadvantaged group that is my choice that I am free to make and glad to make. If, on the other hand, the government sticks its hands in my pocket and pulls out $100 to give to that same disadvantaged group then that is a case of me being robbed, except the weapon of choice is a law or a tax rather than a knife.

[Avatar]

I have no control over what I'm taxed, or what is done with the tax I pay, so I never let it bother me. *shrug*

I would pay higher tax with pleasure if it meant free education and health care and support for people who needed it.

Our problem is that our government just wastes our tax money on a massive scale. But I still can't do anything about it, so I don't worry about it.

--A

[Morning]

Exactly. If I donate $100 to a charity to help some disadvantaged group that is my choice that I am free to make and glad to make. If, on the other hand, the government sticks its hands in my pocket and pulls out $100 to give to that same disadvantaged group then that is a case of me being robbed, except the weapon of choice is a law or a tax rather than a knife.

+1000

[SoulBiter]

If you feed them, that's going to be a pile of poop somewhere.

So the best thing to do is NOT feed them. Then they wont poop at all!!! Will the tax payers be on the hook for the body bags as they die from starvation or should we just dig a big hole and bury them in mass? Insensitive homeless people dying in my yard and in front of my customers. Maybe if we just bussed them to the desert and let the Coyotes clean up the mess.