Feeding the poor or Enabling homelessness?

[sgt.null]

Why not feed the homeless from churches, which IMOHO is one of the primary responsibilities of the CHURCH.? Every church I've ever seen has a restroom, and I'd really like to see the police enforce a law against feeding the poor from a church or other place of worship.

Or is that the churches don't want the homeless hanging around outside anymore than the business and tourist district of Ft. Lauderdale?

I believe you will find many food pantries run by churches. our Catholic church here runs the local food pantry. we volunteer goods to it as often as we can. they also have a fresh garden in-season.

in Brattleboro VT and Concord NH the local Catholic churches run a food pantry. in Concord there was a soup kitchen, I have no idea who ran that. and in Concord the local Salvation Army chapter feeds and homes the poor.

I am willing to bet that most towns are like this. feeding the poor is a HUGE part of ministry in the Catholic faith. and clothing them, we also provide that. and soap/cleaning stuff.

and with winter coming there will be even more of a need for clothing and shelter for the poor. I encourage everyone to give what they can.

if you have some old sweaters/coats or blankets that you aren't using - please donate them. it got down to 45 degrees today here an hour out of Houston.

[SoulBiter]

Thats Awesome Sarge!!!!!

We volunteer at a couple of different Churches to feed the poor and help with donations of food, blankets, clothes, toiletry items to another local charity called "In His name ministries" which has grown quite a bit over the last several years.

We also take a truck from our Church into Atlanta and give out coats, blankets and bags of toiletries from toothpaste/toothbrush, to soap. There is a men's coat drive going on right now to gather as many as we can to meet some of the need.

[Avatar]

As admirable as it is, private charity is still insufficient to help everybody.

But I certainly wouldn't deny the good work that religious organisations do in this regard.

--A

[sgt.null]

Thats Awesome Sarge!!!!!

We volunteer at a couple of different Churches to feed the poor and help with donations of food, blankets, clothes, toiletry items to another local charity called "In His name ministries" which has grown quite a bit over the last several years.

We also take a truck from our Church into Atlanta and give out coats, blankets and bags of toiletries from toothpaste/toothbrush, to soap. There is a men's coat drive going on right now to gather as many as we can to meet some of the need.

blankets/coats needed. it got down to 30 degrees in Houston two nights ago.

keep up the good work SB!

[Rawedge Rim]

As admirable as it is, private charity is still insufficient to help everybody.

But I certainly wouldn't deny the good work that religious organisations do in this regard.

--A

please elaborate on first sentence

[Avatar]

There are too many people in poverty or suffering or unsustainable circumstances to make it realistic to depend on the charity of private individuals or organisations to provide anything except relatively temporary and localised assistance.

I've mentioned before how the US seems to have a very strong (and laudable) tradition of private (personal) charitable work. It's quite common for people to, for example, donate a monthly amount to a charity.

That is not however the case worldwide, and again, as admirable as it is, will not suffice to relieve poverty on a large scale.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

There are too many people in poverty or suffering or unsustainable circumstances to make it realistic to depend on the charity of private individuals or organisations to provide anything except relatively temporary and localised assistance.

I've mentioned before how the US seems to have a very strong (and laudable) tradition of private (personal) charitable work. It's quite common for people to, for example, donate a monthly amount to a charity.

That is not however the case worldwide, and again, as admirable as it is, will not suffice to relieve poverty on a large scale.

--A

Let's look at a couple of points:
1.

There are too many people in poverty or suffering or unsustainable circumstances to make it realistic to depend on the charity of private individuals or organisations to provide anything except relatively temporary and localised assistance.

Short of a continued stipend, I don't see what else one can do for the homeless. Real poverty needs attention, yet percieved poverty (I say this in a nation where a roof over ones head, and ownership of an automobile, television, smart phone, etc. can still be considered living in poverty) is insoluable.

2. How do organizations that can build churches\cathedrals that house thousands, not be able to provide daily meals and help to the truly needy. Should not local churches and charitable organizations know the local people and situation and be able to help accordingly (heck, beyond just food assistance, surely at least a decent percentage of the churches member are business people, or managers of companies, couldn't they provide either jobs or job assistance?)

3. When has the government done anything real efficiently, other than aquire power and spend the crap out of money?

[Avatar]

I'm not worried about perceived poverty. I'm worried about the kind where children go to bed in a makeshift shack every night without any food.

2) Of course they can do it. But they don't reach everybody. Not every neighbourhood has an organisation able or willing to care for people in that community. And for those that do, all too often they have insufficient resources themselves, without the benefit of government support.

3) Probably never. But in the end, I would rather have more people helped inefficiently than people not being helped at all.

Maybe in the US where you have a church and charitable institution every 100m it can be enough. Here it's not.

--A

[SoulBiter]

I don't think the Churches can handle it all, they just do what they can. However the local govts are not going to help in any meaningful way and, worse, some are trying to keep local charities from doing what they can.

[lorin]

However the local govts are not going to help in any meaningful way and, worse, some are trying to keep local charities from doing what they can.

As someone who worked 25 years for city (local) government and 10 years working with non-profit homeless agencies feeding, housing and protecting the homeless I have to take issue with that. Just like the churches, they do what they can. It is a bottomless pit. There is never enough resources, never enough staff, and a never ending line of those in need. The problem lies in distinguishing who is truly homeless, who 'chooses' for whatever reason to be homeless and those who benefit from being homeless. And before you all jump down my throat, there are those who greatly benefit from being homeless. Also the problem becomes how do you define homelessness. It is not as easy as 'some guy sleeping on a beach'. There are all definitions of homeless. They range from the guy living in the subway to the to the fire victim that lost their house to the 18 year old that doesn't want to live by her mothers rules and shows up claiming homelessness. And they are ALL entitled to the same benefits, they all have to be sorted out, and they all have to be found homes to live in. It used to be easier when you could say "Mary, go to that shelter, and Bill go to that one" But no more thanks to our legal brigade. Now each person is entitled to so much square feet, homeless must be taken to a warm shelter when the temp drops even if they refuse, married couples (or domestic partners) are entitled to a private room, different sexed children over the age of 4 cannot be placed in the same room or with their parents where they might see sexual activity. Children are entitled to be placed in a shelter in their former school district or provided busing to that school. And the list goes on and on. So before we jump all over the government, lets look at the constraints they are under. Then multiply it by the 50,000 that walk through the cities doors every year.

[Rawedge Rim]

I'm not worried about perceived poverty. I'm worried about the kind where children go to bed in a makeshift shack every night without any food.

2) Of course they can do it. But they don't reach everybody. Not every neighbourhood has an organisation able or willing to care for people in that community. And for those that do, all too often they have insufficient resources themselves, without the benefit of government support.

3) Probably never. But in the end, I would rather have more people helped inefficiently than people not being helped at all.

Maybe in the US where you have a church and charitable institution every 100m it can be enough. Here it's not.

--A

Considering your continent, I have to give you that one. Africa is a place where real grinding poverty in so epidemic and endemic that it is barely comprehendable to the average person in the rest of the industrialized world.

[Rawedge Rim]

I've given the homeless situation thought over the years, as I suspect many have, and I'm certainly not an authorithy on the subject; having said that, I have a few ideas:

1. Obviously a place to clean up would be great idea, along with a place to crash. If we could get some of the sillier people and judges out of the mix, an open bay concept similar to military barracks would seem a bit more efficient use of dollars for single folks (with guards to keep the peace and enforce rules). Same with the soup kitchen.

2. Some sort of post office with post office boxes that the homeless could use at least in the short run so that they have an address to give to banks and employers.

3. Perhaps some sort of bank that caters to the homeless for a short term of time so that they have a secure place to keep money.

4. Going somewhat back to the first point, along with a place to stay for a while and a shower, some type of triage, to separate those who are homeless through economic problems, vrs. those who are homeless because of addictions and mental instability. I've never figured out why its better to let the mentally unstable and drug addicted freeze to death rather than maybe incarcerate them in some kind of institution where they may get help. Those who are homeless because of economic set backs are much easier to help, they just need a hand for a bit of time.

[SoulBiter]

Agree RR!

Lorin, I also agree with your post above. I wasnt disparaging the work that is being done, I was commenting on how it wasnt enough. Example, San Francisco spends about $458,000 per day on homelessness. That's more than most cities spend. But the budget of SF is 10,000,000,000... yes thats 10 billion dollars. So just over 1/10 of 1% of the budget goes to help the homeless. I bet if you checked, you would find that same scenario on percentages playing out everywhere in the US. The local govts just arent willing to spend on it.

[Rawedge Rim]

Agree RR!

Lorin, I also agree with your post above. I wasnt disparaging the work that is being done, I was commenting on how it wasnt enough. Example, San Francisco spends about $458,000 per day on homelessness. That's more than most cities spend. But the budget of SF is 10,000,000,000... yes thats 10 billion dollars. So just over 1/10 of 1% of the budget goes to help the homeless. I bet if you checked, you would find that same scenario on percentages playing out everywhere in the US. The local govts just arent willing to spend on it.

Part of my point is that local government probably shouldn't be in the business in the first place except as a last resort. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that religious organizations tout that Christ told them to care for the poor, and many do. But if a church has the money to build the a mega church with a jumbotron, multispeaker system, a parking garage, amusement parks, and pastor makes way over 100k a year; how is that assisting the poor. Hell, the taxes on such structures alone would buy a boatload of soup and a train full of bread.

[Cail]

I think I may have shared this story a few years ago, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself.

About three years ago, the pastor of a MegaChurch in Prince George's County here in MD (same county that voted over 90% for Obama and walked out on him during his stumping for the Democrat governor candidate) decided to build himself a house. Now his "church" is essentially a shopping mall with a big auditorium, and the Right Reverend was either in his $80,000 Escalade when visiting the jobsite, or his $250,000 Bentley when he was out and about.

I don't recall the exact square footage of his home, but it was somewhere well north of 10,000 square feet. IIRC, his window package was around $200,000, and there was a ton of custom woodworking done inside the home. Oh, and it was a couple of acres of waterfront property, and that wasn't cheap either. I'll have to see if I can dig up any pictures of it.

But what was really interesting, was that the permit was applied for in the Pastor's name, yet all the checks we received were from the church's account.

[Rawedge Rim]

Agree RR!

Lorin, I also agree with your post above. I wasnt disparaging the work that is being done, I was commenting on how it wasnt enough. Example, San Francisco spends about $458,000 per day on homelessness. That's more than most cities spend. But the budget of SF is 10,000,000,000... yes thats 10 billion dollars. So just over 1/10 of 1% of the budget goes to help the homeless. I bet if you checked, you would find that same scenario on percentages playing out everywhere in the US. The local govts just arent willing to spend on it.

OBTW, what did SF get for thier $458,000 per day; more homeless people.

[lorin]

Lorin, I also agree with your post above. I wasnt disparaging the work that is being done, I was commenting on how it wasnt enough. Example, San Francisco spends about $458,000 per day on homelessness. That's more than most cities spend. But the budget of SF is 10,000,000,000... yes thats 10 billion dollars. So just over 1/10 of 1% of the budget goes to help the homeless. I bet if you checked, you would find that same scenario on percentages playing out everywhere in the US. The local govts just arent willing to spend on it.

Those are pretty staggering statistics and pretty sad. I don't know how NYC's stats compare to SF. I do know, however, that NYC is under so many legal mandates brought about by advocates that expenses are very high. It used to be that all funding for homeless programs n NYC were matching funds where the state and feds matched dollar for dollar. But both the states and feds withdrew matching funds yet NYC was still under orders from the courts to institute the same programs.

I think, fundamentally that funds used by the government for homeless programs are badly administered and unrealistic. We have to stop using government funds for stopgap measures and deal with the real issue, and that is affordable housing. When a studio in a Brooklyn ghetto is going to run 1500.00 a month, what is a minimum wage earner supposed to do? Either we have to deal with an unworkable minimum wage or build more affordable housing. Bloomberg had good workable programs that were defunded by Cuomo to get himself voted into office. Once the state backed out, the Fed followed suit and the program collapsed.

Another issue is that the criteria of what we call a homeless person is very fluid and subject to every legal aid attorney that wants to make a name for him/her self. But is that 18 year old with a baby that refuses to be home by midnight or listen to her mommy, has a tantrum and goes to a processing center stating her mother threw her out truly homeless? Well, according to the legal system in NY she is homeless. And as a homeless person with her own child, she is entitled to a plethora of benefits including an apartment style shelter.

I could go on and on and on. There are so many rules and caveats that have constipated our system. Just to throw out one little statistic for your consideration. There are 1800 employees in the NYC Department of Homeless Services. (Most of the 280 shelters in NYC are subcontracted out to private non profits and these numbers I offer do not include those shelters) of the 1800 staff members, which include everything from trades, cleaning staff, case workers, childcare workers, supervisors, managers and commissioners there are 78 commissioners and 328 attorneys.

[Avatar]

...if a church has the money to build the a mega church with a jumbotron, multispeaker system, a parking garage, amusement parks, and pastor makes way over 100k a year; how is that assisting the poor...

Saving your souls by taking your money...

--A

[SoulBiter]

RR - Whats your point? There will always be the homeless. Its not like a one time spend and the problems go away. For their 458K per day they put homeless families in housing, they feed people who need to be fed, they provide temporary shelter to transients, they try to get to the underlying problems to get these people off the street and for every one they fix, another is ready to take that persons place. But that doesnt mean that we stop trying to help these people.

Also for every pastor you are describing, there are 100's and maybe 1000's that are doing the actual work that the Church is supposed to do. I would bet if you looked at some of these pastors that you are condemning, you will find that many don't take a salary from the Church at all. You also forget that once you have so many people gathering in one place, the local govt wont let you continue to do so without enough parking, bathrooms, and a bldg that will support that many people. Just a basic bldg to support 1000 people meeting will cost 2 million dollars to buy or build.

[Rawedge Rim]

RR - Whats your point? There will always be the homeless. Its not like a one time spend and the problems go away. For their 458K per day they put homeless families in housing, they feed people who need to be fed, they provide temporary shelter to transients, they try to get to the underlying problems to get these people off the street and for every one they fix, another is ready to take that persons place. But that doesnt mean that we stop trying to help these people.

Also for every pastor you are describing, there are 100's and maybe 1000's that are doing the actual work that the Church is supposed to do. I would bet if you looked at some of these pastors that you are condemning, you will find that many don't take a salary from the Church at all. You also forget that once you have so many people gathering in one place, the local govt wont let you continue to do so without enough parking, bathrooms, and a bldg that will support that many people. Just a basic bldg to support 1000 people meeting will cost 2 million dollars to buy or build.

I understand that there will always be the poor and homeless. So why doesn't every church have a soup line, even if it's only a couple of sandwichs, then an old guy doesn't have to set up shop on the beach to do the same job. It's one of the basic tenets of christianity.

As for SF, when they upped thier outlays for feeding the homeless, and passed ordinances that forbade public buildings from sending the homeless on thier way, the rest of California and a large percentage of the NW began sending thier "tired, poor, and homeless" to SF, relieving them of the nesecity of feeding and housing the homeless. (they are by no means the only city in the US to have done so)