March 28, 2007
-
Feeding the Homeless
Certain cities are making it more difficult to feed the homeless.
They are creating rules about where these homeless people can be given food. They are requiring permits and they are limiting the number of free meals they can give them.
Although there are a few reasons given, the main focus of these laws appear to be the concern about crime and the damage to tourism. Here is the link: Link
Should a city place limits on the feeding of the homeless?
Comments (130)
Sounds fair to me. Alot of people are abusing the system anyway.
Economy > keeping people alive, eh? Forget the homeless people, we need to attract tourists!
I guess some restrictions are necessary in case of crime and all.
This is wrong. People need to be allowed to take care of the homeless.
No way! It seems that oppression of the people who should be receiving help is a favorite pastime of the government. Assholes.
i think it all depends on what the situations around them are like….
no…if people are using their own funds and supply’s…. then they should be able to give food away….
…Yes and no. On one point, creating a short of freebies may encourage the homeless to find jobs, or places to stay. But also, there are those that are going to starve in the streets, so… I don’t know where I was going with that. Sorry.
No. Where is compassion? What would we do if we didn’t have homes? Put yourself in their shoes. I don’t think there is a way to overfeed the homeless.
No, they should not.
I don’t think I understand it. I’m not really into that kind of stuff but I think that what they should do instead, these people that usually feed the homeless, is teach a homeless person how to cook! Then they might be able to get a job and can make some money, maybe even enough to no longer be homeless. I think that that would be a good idea.
However, I don’t really understand this. Aren’t most of those sorts of places in the, erm, less fortunate burroughs of cities? I don’t see how that would impead tourism, nobody likes to go to those places–most of the people that live there don’t even like it. I don’t see how it would impead tourism if that is the case and is therefore unjustified.
In the case of crime I understand somewhat so that they can understand where they need to station officers of the law and at what times.
Cheers,
m
naah
Idk, i understand trying to keep homeless people out of the tourism section, every city would probably want to do that, but they gotta eat
The homeless should just be euthanized.
they certainly keep trying…it will be interesting to see what las vegas does…
They should establish a limit on giving out money to people who don’t work. Feeding the homeless is simply meeting a need.
that is absolutely ridiculous. its the cities fault that half those people are homeless in the first place.
i always knew that we had a government set up so that we can starve the people on the streets.
Ooh, that’s unfortunate…
Although I can also see where they’re coming from. I mean, SF has such an incredibly high population of homeless people because they used to give out checks to the homeless as their way to try to help them. I can see why cities would be afraid of being too kind to homeless people, and attracting even more of them.
It might help homeless people do something about their lives
hmmmmm…I have mixed feelings about that…
no
That would be a B-I-G
NO!
Denying anyone in the US should be criminal for the simple fact of how wasteful we are.
Limitation to the number of meals?? “We dont want TOO many people getting fed”
Each and every one of couse be homeless for a time someday.
Try to empathise with it. I know if I couldn’t take it anymore, I could renoounce all my belongings and become a street nomad.
No one is ever stuck anywhere, but getting back up is a long task…
can they seriously limit eating food. I think that is a joke because whoever is feeding them will not follow the law in that case.
I mean, SF has such an incredibly high population of homeless people because they used to give out checks to the homeless as their way to try to help them. I can see why cities would be afraid of being too kind to homeless people, and attracting even more of them.
Posted 3/28/2007 8:35 AM by mightymarce
I used to live there on the corner of Pine and Market (street, that big marroon building). I loved the homeless people, I was six. I would buy their newspapers–but not read them–and give them money. I also had a favourite homeless lady, she was a tall, dark skinned woman probably in her late twenties or thirties. She was so nice and she and my mum used to talk about different things. Anyway, I don’t think it added much to crime though… but I was living in practically the safest/richest area so I guess that doesn’t really count.
I think limiting the locations is ok, as long as they dont get rid of them all together. I think limiting the amount of food is wrong.
Im saying yes, because alot of the homeless people in Houston are taking over DOWNTOWN.
We need to get Kansas more homeless people so we can have more tourism.
well feeding them is better than just giving them money, so I would be more opposed to throwing money at them. What really needs to be done is finding a way to get them to get jobs so they can support themselves. They shouldn’t be dependant on other people’s generosity and become a drain on society. But doing nothing for them isn’t right either. It’s a tricky situation
they plan on getting rid of crime by letting them die from starvation. seems fair to me?
I can understand a city zoning this activity but banning it is not a solution…
NO! Money maybe, but not food! Goverment is just trying to get rid of them….
So… you can either give them food, or they can steal it or pick it out of trash cans.
Yeah. That’s not a solution.
I am torn. I understand the needs of the city to want to protect and organize the situation better. That is all part of being responsible as city government goes. As a Christian our focus is on helping those who are weak. “Whatsoever you do to the least of these…” Giving out money, though, is never a good thing. Take them to get the groceries. Take them to put gas in vehicles so they can get to work. It doesn’t help them if you are just handing it out all the time. Find a way for them to help you in some small way. Maybe your bushes need trimming. Maybe you need the sidewalks swept. Something.
I’m a little dismayed at the “get a job” attitude some commenters seem to have. If it were just as simple as “get a job” there would be very few homeless. Some individuals don’t seem to understand that many homeless people are homeless because they have severe mental or psychological problems that keep them from “getting a job”. Other homeless persons are ordinary people who had been one paycheck away from being homeless, and finally were pushed into those circumstances by losing that one paycheck. If you think about it, the possibility of being homeless is not that far away from a lot of us. And for many people, when they don’t receive the care they might need the only option left to them is being homeless. Think about that the next time you suggest that these people just “get a job”.
No.
Yes they should. But a lot a people that know little about who and what the homeless really are begin to weep real tears, at the thought keeping them from destroying parts of town.
These are not average folks down on there luck. The story is not true at all. These people need to be forcibly detain inn mental health hospitals, drug and alcohol treatment centers. Giving them only food, or worse yet money, with out any demands connected to it, is only making it worse for them and everyone around them.
That makes sense. Maybe they should make laws about how many times we should feed our children.
I don’t think I understand it. I’m not really into that kind of stuff but I think that what they should do instead, these people that usually feed the homeless, is teach a homeless person how to cook! Then they might be able to get a job and can make some money, maybe even enough to no longer be homeless. I think that that would be a good idea.
um, ireally don’t think their inability to cook a decent meal is going to turn their life around. a lot of homeless people have tried to get jobs, tried tom ake things better for themselves. granted, sometimes educating them is the way togo, but not at the expense of what everyone needs : food and water. you think they choose to be homeless? that they wouldnt rather have a nice cozy house? i’m failign tosee how teaching them tocook would benefit them when they’ve no money to BUY FOOD.
“One pay check form homeless” is such a farce. The unemployment rate is 4%, in other words you want a job it there.
These are substance abuse and metal health issues, few of these people have the ability it take care of them selfs, no matter how money they have give to them. They are sick, they need help. But not the type of worthless compassion that involve handing them money and food.
Wouldn’t that just push crime rates up?
Homeless people start stealing and mugging people?
I think it’s the right intentions but in the wrong way.
Before passing restrictions on how, where and how often the homeless can be helped, city legislators should have to spend a week among them with no money or other resources. Then they could make decisions based on firsthand knowledge and probably a bit of compassion.
These are substance abuse and metal health issues, few of these people have the ability it take care of them selfs, no matter how money they have give to them. They are sick, they need help. But not the type of worthless compassion that involve handing them money and food.
Posted 3/28/2007 9:19 AM by trunthepaige
so, while you’re busy teachign them tobe valuable members of society, they’re starving because they have no money or food?
No.
That city places tourists above its own people? Sad.
well depends on whether or not the food you give them will kill them due to your lack of culinary skills or bacteria from your sub par ingredients constrained by your low-wage paying job.
they can actually sue us too
um, i really don’t think their inability to cook a decent meal is going to turn their life around. a lot of homeless people have tried to get jobs, tried tom ake things better for themselves. granted, sometimes educating them is the way togo, but not at the expense of what everyone needs : food and water. you think they choose to be homeless? that they wouldnt rather have a nice cozy house? i’m failing to see how teaching them to cook would benefit them when they’ve no money to BUY FOOD.
Posted 3/28/2007 9:17 AM by Kestryl
That was not the point of my statement. I don’t think that homeless people want to be homeless, a lot of the time it is because they are seriously ill or addicted to some sort of substance. However, some of them are not and are just unneducated as to how to do some sort of task that could get them a job. I was just saying that for those they should try and educate them as to how to do something. If you read the rest of my comment you would see that I don’t think this limit on feeding the homeless is a good idea. And I didn’t say that it (educating them on how to do some sort of thing) should be at the expense of the others who are not able to do anything and cannot get a job because of physical and/or mental dissabilities. And when I said “instead”, I meant if this limit thing goes through, so that people aren’t just left to fend for themselves when they could be helped (those that can be, mind you). It was sort of a way that maybe some people could go around it, again, to help those that can be helped–teaching them to cook was just an example.
Cheers,
m
What are they, pigeons? Ducks?
No. That sounds like something those idiots in N’awlins would have done.
B.S.
If they’re so worried about crime and tourism, then maybe they should be helping fix the problem of homelessness and hunger. Maybe instead of passing laws to inhibit, they should be setting up shelters and designated places for these folks to get food and find shelter. Uh, that would be the sensible thing, now, wouldn’t it.
The resounding answer is NO.
I could understand putting a limit on giving actual money to people but limiting food is just crossing the line. Everybody has a right food.
I struggle with the idea of people putting restrictions on the generosity of others, especially for something like tourism.
I don’t have all the facts. Maybe there’s something I’m missing. However, I think generosity should be embraced, not discouraged.
kinda.. I mean you can see those homeless people that are just bums. They are probably thinking heck I can get a free meal and all this comfort from these people why would I want to try and get a job, then I would have to buy my food.. I dunno.
thats soo messed up.. we are putting money before these people. shouldn’t we care more about these people? wouldn’t it be a nice testimony to show that, the state actually care about these people?
j
When the tourist economy of a city takes precedence over those who actually live there, something is wrong. And if homeless people are going to turn tourists away, then those tourists need to wake up to what the real world is like anyway.
I don’t think it’s even remotely right to limit what people can do for ANYONE in need.
Hell no.
No. That has to be one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.
we feed the homeless at my job 2 days a week. One is a meal and the other is a snack bag. it is limited to a couple of hours. we have to do that or it would be totally out of control.
One of the dumbest ideas I have heard recently. They should instead invest in finding a way to help the homeless. Most people do not choose to live that way. By creating laws against feeding them is just adding insult to the injury
No!
This is what you get from Capitalism. . .can’t say it’s a surprise. . .
Do the homeless even get food stamps? Which people who are able to afford housing can get?
Stop discriminating against the poor! Jeez, you think after all this time we would change or something. . .
Okay, to some of the commentors out there. . .
Saying we need to help them get a job or what not.
Alot of the homeless people DO have jobs, but can’t afford the high cost of city housing!
So they can’t afford a place to stay, and if we’re not willing to give them food, and they have to spend their money on food, they’re that less likely to be able to get a home anytime soon!
yeah and they should put limits on feeding pidgeons too. same concept right?
I believe you have to look at it on a situation-by-situation basis. Laws should limit our ability to help the needy, but, at the same time, you don’t want to encourage homeless people from massing just to get a handout.
I think it’s definetly fair!
RYC: So, then you wouldn’t mind the maggets on your penis? Hehe!
that is the dumbest, most selfish thing i have ever heard! if they want to make a difference they should offer voc. rehab’s to help the homeless beat the cycle – not stop feeding them, which by the way won’t cut down on crime, but may increase it do to their desperation for food.
what cities are doing this??? so i can cross them off my vacation list, and not support their new tourism agenda’s with my tourism money.
Can’t we just execute society’s problems?
Can’t we just execute society’s problems?
Can’t we just execute society’s problems?
Look, homeless people are know better than the rest of us!
The homeless cannot get jobs because no one wants them.
The majority of them are sorry for how they screwed themselves or got screwed over.
They are alive, but can’t find food or work – What can they do?
It makes me sick how many of us look at homeless people with contempt or discuss, instead of compassion and mercy.
no…if people are using their own funds and supply’s…. then they should be able to give food away….
Posted 3/28/2007 8:19 AM by HEBCHILL
Exactally
I’m so torn on this issue. I can see both sides of it.
No. That is completely ridiculous in every way.
what? hell no.
besides, 50% of the homeless are mentally ill, and are incapable of holding down a steady job even if they want to. you can’t jsut use the excuse “they’re no good bums who are freeloading.”
No.
i don’t think cities should place limits on feeding the homeless. it’s seriously a worthy cause, even though there’s no money involved per se (only to buy the food).
No, thats dumb. if you worried about your torism over the homeless than something is wrong with you. If its the crime, the help clean up the crime. feeding the homeless is good and should not be held back because it is “inconvienant” for rich city politicians and organizations.
Daniel (doubledb)
Damn, next thing you know they’ll try to make it a crime to be homeless.
no. that is absolutely terrible.
damage to tourism? jeez.
Is that fair to limit food for people just because they’re homeless?
But then again, it may give the people who are homeless more motivation to get out of their current state.
But otherwise, thats horrible.
How rude
That’s horrible.
I’m gonna go help some homeless.
no because the government is the one that should be doing this in the first place. they should be the ones feeding the homeless, not giving that job to someone else and then restricting their capabilities.
however, im speaking of an ideal world.
i see a lot of healthy-looking, well-fed homeless men on the way to school (in berkeley, ca); but i know that millions of helpless emaciated children are in other countries and places in our country who suffer from diseases like marasmus or other protein-defiency diseases. healthy men who are able to get a job but are too lazy should not be spoiled, but our attention to be geared towards those who are unable to help themselves due to a more direct force of oppression.
yadidamean?
yupp
what’s the saying?…
give a man a fish, and he’ll be hungry again
teach a man to fish, and he’ll never go hungry again.
teach these big-city homeless folk to get back to school or get a job.
don’t JUST feed em (although it can entail that), but teach em too.
A rehabilitation type thing. cus obviously their problem exceeds mere physical hunger
They should pull rick-shaws for food.
I hate the government.
excuse me…some people are out there through no fault of their own…they lost either their sposes or jobs…and what jobs they do get is at mimium wage and not full time at that…and you want to limit food to these people…some are there by choice granted…but the others are forced into the situation and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer…smile
You should add LEONIDAS to your poll!
some not many
Ahh the crime of being poor, and we shall now punish those who would help
No.
In my history class, I had to write a paper on slavery after readin a book written by a slave whose name was Fredrick Douglas. One of the things he mentioned in the book is that food was withheld from the slaves at various times so that the slave would know that he was dependent on his master and would not misbehave because he wanted to be able to eat. In my paper I was supposed to mention something that I thought was the most inhumane part of slavery and I chose the holding back of food. I don’t know if anyone here has ever been hungry, I know my family has been. My dad was diagnosed with brain damage and my mom could not find a job in our small town because she hadn’t worked in 20+ years and so she had no work history. So because he wasn’t working and she couldn’t find a job money was very tight until dad could get on social security disability. It is never wrong to need help, we all need different kinds of help at various times in our life. It is not shameful to admit that you need help. It is shameful to withhold help from someone that needs it and is asking for it. It is not the homeless that need to be euthanized, it is the heartless that wish to make homeless go hungry that need to be euthanized.
Haha. “Let’s be good, kind people and feed those who are starving! … at least enough to make us look good, but not too much to go over our budget.”
Cough.
yes because there are many ways for peple to make enough money to get food, unless you are just completly lazy with no ambition or children are involved
Absolutely Not. I worked in a homeless shelter for 2 days last summer when i was on a mission trip to St. Louis. Moste people who are homeless are there because of mental or physical disabilities. I met someone who was there not because he didnt have a job, not because he was poor, but because he had to give all his money to his ex-wife for alamony. yea to support the 6 kids he isn’t aloud to see. And now they want to cut back on helping these people to attract tourists? BS now what kind of a country are we. Cast away the ones who don’t profit the nation as a whole? Come one now. Thats rediculous.
No!
No…
Why would they need to do that?
i think that’s wrong. nobody should be denied food.
I can see how rules could be helpful. At first glance, the idea of rules placed on helping others makes me shudder, but on second thought, no rules=chaos. I don’t know if tourist-preservation is a proper motive, but I do think crime-prevention is.
If our government would start taking care of its own and stop blowing money on every other country that hates Americans, there wouldn’t be such a monumental homeless problem.
no, thats stupid
Hey, it sounds like the typical “Pro Life” Republican Culture.
Fuckers.
Now if they were some brain dead chick who had been in a coma for fifteen years, they’d be lining up to demand the right to feed her despite her husband’s wish to let her body die like her brain had years before.
hell no. you know, if you can help the homeless you really should. forget the tourists… all they think about is MONEY! for once think about people’s lives… -_-
reminds me of social darwinism in a sense~ “survival of the fittest” obviously the homeless aren’t fit, but we should try to help.
Well, it would keep the nation’s obesity crisis from getting worse.
Fuck that, feed ‘em anyway.
They aren’t homeless because their lazy, a full-time minimum wage job in many cities is NOT enough to live on. Do some research. I’ll make it easy, read Nickel & Dimed, and then you can go through the sources she wrote it from, in addition to her own experiences. Unless your so lazy you find it easier to pull bullshit facts about laziness out of the air.
no!
This just in…We are still at war.
No, if people want to help others by giving them food, more power to them! Let them give away as much as they want, wherever the homeless gather. – JN.14:27 Rom.5:8
If the homeless will show up then you feed them what’s the problem
No.
As I am still mainly among the homeless (lol, I do have a job now on week ends as a councilor/guard of sorts where I live) I think it should be regulated. There should also be places where you can walk without having someone beg for money (which in alot of cases doesn’t go to food or”a ride home”).There are alot of fakes out there, and people just wanting to get high/drunk.There should be a way to help those trying to better themselves(and who really could use the help) and weed out the fakes.
Maybe having certain designated areas is a good idea…but permits? That’s rediculous.
I think feeding them is not enough. They need to find out why each person is homeless and create programs that would help them get back on their feet. afterall U.S. government do not mind doing such things for other countries. What about your own people. They are us. They had lives and jobs at one time. While I was semi-homeless I lost one of my jobs during that point of time. It is hard to get back up when you get kicked down. I had to leave an abusive partner with just about only the clothes on my back.
Rather than rules cities should be feeding the homeless not harassing those who are doing their job for them. The government is responsible for all it’s citizens, they have farmed this responsibility off on others. Cities want to build opera houses and statutes while people go hungry and have on homes. Pathetic
*shrug* Sure, why not.
I really dont get the “theory” behind this one… Most homeless shelters and soup kitchens are in crappy neighborhoods anyway-
Who the heck (a tourist?) is going down there to go sightseeing???
wierd.
its just right that they should … if the people are being abusive, they don’t deserve it…
let ‘em starve.
NO!
No – I think this is wrong – we have a moral and ethical responsibility to give a hand up. Sure at this point it’s a handout but you can’t really do much on an empty stomach. There are immediate needs and basic human needs that have to be met first before bigger social problems can get solved.
I’m not sure what they mean by tourism. I live in Kissimmee, Florida, and I don’t go to downtown Disney to feel the the homeless – they aren’t there. I go where they are and tourists don’t seem to be hanging around in those places.
Definitly not, wat the cities are doing on all based on pure self greed, they want more money for their city and their paychecks, they don’t care about the homeless people at all.