70-year-old Charity Told to Stop Feeding Homeless in Seattle

[sailingaway]

Feeding the homeless is being banned in many major cities in America. Seattle is just the latest city to enforce restrictions on charities that feed the homeless.

The Bread of Life Mission has been feeding the poor in Seattle for 70 years, and now they are being prevented from doing so in public parks without the city's approval.

"It was a service we were offering free of charge to be a blessing to the homeless," Executive Director Willie Parish, Jr told MyNorthwest.com. "All we were doing was just a continuation of what we do on a daily basis."

According to My Northwest:

In December, however, Parish said Seattle police told them they were no longer allowed to serve food at the park.

City officials say the restriction is nothing new, and that Bread of Life simply operated in the park for three years without being caught or reported.

David Takami with the Seattle Human Services Department said the city does not allow groups of people to feed the homeless outdoors without approval.

"This has happened in the past where there are a lot of meals served in a short period of time on the same day," he said. "It's a little chaotic and it can also lead to wasted food."

why the hell should they care? It isn't THEIR food, and heaven forbid the homeless should get any without subjecting themselves to 'conditions' of the state.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/...d-to-stop.html

[acptulsa]

If ever there was a case begging to be tested in the Supreme Court as a violation of the seperation of church and state, this is it. Anyone who's the least bit serious about their Christianity is serious about feeding the hungry. If it isn't safe to be a Christian in the U.S., then what faith is it safe to be?

[RickyJ]

If ever there was a case begging to be tested in the Supreme Court as a violation of the seperation of church and state, this is it. Anyone who's the least bit serious about their Christianity is serious about feeding the hungry. If it isn't safe to be a Christian in the U.S., then what faith is it safe to be?

I can answer that question but then I would be called an anti-Semite.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

If ever there was a case begging to be tested in the Supreme Court as a violation of the seperation of church and state, this is it. Anyone who's the least bit serious about their Christianity is serious about feeding the hungry. If it isn't safe to be a Christian in the U.S., then what faith is it safe to be?

They did that in Tampa too, and they don't care if you're religious or not. Regular people, or groups of regular people can't feed the homeless.

[kcchiefs6465]

why the hell should they care? It isn't THEIR food, and heaven forbid the homeless should get any without subjecting themselves to 'conditions' of the state.

Beauracracy at it's finest. Heaven forbid we stopped paying their salary and they happen upon hard times. I've read a few other cities have the same policy. You are more valuable when you are dependent on the state.

[tttppp]

Beauracracy at it's finest. Heaven forbid we stopped paying their salary and they happen upon hard times. I've read a few other cities have the same policy. You are more valuable when you are dependent on the state.

Thats how its designed. The state doesnt want you to make it on your own. They want you to recieve your government check indefinetly.

[FrancisMarion]

"Hey man, What you in here for?"

"I was feeding the homeless."

Joking aside and regardless of Seattle's crap, I do find it strange that the homeless are having their meals brought to them in the park.

[kcchiefs6465]

"Hey man, What you in here for?"

"I was feeding the homeless."

Joking aside and regardless of Seattle's crap, I do find it strange that the homeless are having their meals brought to them in the park.

Why? The 'park' they are referring to is most likely not a park in the sense of swingsets and children. Where I live they call it a 'park' but it is merely a few picnic tables in open grass. They feed the homeless there every first Sunday of the month.

[Kregisen]

Why? The 'park' they are referring to is most likely not a park in the sense of swingsets and children. Where I live they call it a 'park' but it is merely a few picnic tables in open grass. They feed the homeless there every first Sunday of the month.

I lived outside Seattle for 4 months this past summer, and as I was there I joined a local dodgeball league (used to play competitively) that played every week in a park in downtown seattle. It was a real park with grass, basketball courts, homeless people, all kinds of people...very ghetto.


Anyway, as far the homeless thing goes, what a lot of people don't realize is a lot of "homeless" people aren't really homeless (they simply beg for money because the average beggar makes more than $50,000 a year doing that) and 90% of the people who are really homeless are capable of getting a job, they simply make enough to survive by not working.

Unfortunately there is no universal answer that will solve the entire issue, but to continue giving money supporting this trade definitely does not solve it. Handing out food though is not necessarily making the problem worse.

[FrancisMarion]

// Jimmy two times.

[kathy88]

So much bad news on the forums today for freedom. Really depressed.

[mad cow]

Don't XXXXX,
Government hates competition.

[specsaregood]

City officials say the restriction is nothing new, and that Bread of Life simply operated in the park for three years without being caught or reported.

Pretty sick that the terms "being caught or reported" is even used in relation to what they are doing.

[loveableteddybear]

I did work in a homeless shelter and believe it or not there's liability because of food poisoning.

F**king $#@! country we have where any court would give that case the time of day. Our society deserves to be destroyed.

[Tpoints]

I did work in a homeless shelter and believe it or not there's liability because of food poisoning.

F**king $#@! country we have where any court would give that case the time of day. Our society deserves to be destroyed.

That's the logical conclusion of equal protection. Buyer beware capitalism or 'beggers shut the $#@! up' is not allowed anymore. Imagine if the government allowed people to poison homeless people purposely, and when you ask them to investigate, they say "oh, we're not going to waste our money on people who don't pay taxes, they're a burden on everybody", would that be a better world?

[Tpoints]

"Feeding the homeless is being banned in many major cities in America. Seattle is just the latest city to enforce restrictions on charities that feed the homeless."

Really? How is it enforced and what is the rationale for those laws?

[kathy88]

"Feeding the homeless is being banned in many major cities in America. Seattle is just the latest city to enforce restrictions on charities that feed the homeless."

Really? How is it enforced and what is the rationale for those laws?

Because the FDA doesn't get their cut.

[Tpoints]

Because the FDA doesn't get their cut.

Bull$#@!. Food is either purchased or grown, if FDA was the concern, they'd say "you cannot feed people unless it's FDA approved and purchased at certain locations".

[sailingaway]

Bull$#@!. Food is either purchased or grown, if FDA was the concern, they'd say "you cannot feed people unless it's FDA approved and purchased at certain locations".

that was the rationale for turning home made bagels away from Sandy Hook refugees. they might have too much salt or sugar and not be appropriate to give out....

[Tpoints]

that was the rationale for turning home made bagels away from Sandy Hook refugees. they might have too much salt or sugar and not be appropriate to give out....

Hurricane Sandy or Sandy Hook? Well, it doesn't matter, that's home made, and that does suck if people have a worse alternative, but it's far cry from banning feeding people altogether.

[Acala]

Giving away free food attracts vagrants. Vagrants come in many different varieties, some of whom you do not want in your neighborhood or around your children. That's just the fact. When a charity decides to feed vagrants in a public park (instead of on their own property) vagrants are attracted to the park, and end up hanging around there and in the neighborhood around the park doing vagrant things. That makes the park unusable for the people in the neighborhood and also has litter, excrement, and other behavioral problems slopping over out of the park and into the neighborhoods. Neighbors complain. Bitterly. And since they, and not the vagrants, are paying for the park, they have a right to complain about it being rendered unusable.

The answer is to not have government parks.

[Tpoints]

Giving away free food attracts vagrants. Vagrants come in many different varieties, some of whom you do not want in your neighborhood or around your children. That's just the fact. When a charity decides to feed vagrants in a public park (instead of on their own property) vagrants are attracted to the park, and end up hanging around there and in the neighborhood around the park doing vagrant things. That makes the park unusable for the people in the neighborhood and also has litter, excrement, and other behavioral problems slopping over out of the park and into the neighborhoods. Neighbors complain. Bitterly. And since they, and not the vagrants, are paying for the park, they have a right to complain about it being rendered unusable.

The answer is to not have government parks.

Not having government parks will help, but won't solve it completely, because just as there are "free speech zones" (which is basically everywhere other than private property), there will be places where a person can sit, sleep and eat (which is everywhere except private property). So unless you ban homelessness, you'll always have people feed, eating and sleeping on public land. Oh, wait, are you suggesting that we have zero public land, zero public roads too?

And what's so bad about having public parks that "good, innocent, weak and vulnerable" people can't or won't use? People with no business there stay away, let the homeless people be at parks and nobody is bothered. Oh yea, let me guess, you don't want to pay taxes for something you don't use? I get that, but what if the alternative is worse (unless you propose euthanizing or housing them)

[Acala]

Oh, wait, are you suggesting that we have zero public land, zero public roads too?

Yup.

And what's so bad about having public parks that "good, innocent, weak and vulnerable" people can't or won't use? People with no business there stay away, let the homeless people be at parks and nobody is bothered. Oh yea, let me guess, you don't want to pay taxes for something you don't use? I get that, but what if the alternative is worse (unless you propose euthanizing or housing them)

"Public" property always leads to clashes of interest that are resolved politically. This leads to more government power and more factions among the people. Your argument here is simply for YOUR view of how confiscated private property should be used. Such arguments are endless and will be resolved in favor of whoever has the most political clout. The better approach is to get government out of it. Then if you and your friends want to set aside some property to use as a feeding station for vagrants, GREAT! Then the issues will be resolved by market forces, including the will to act charitably with YOUR OWN property.

[BAllen]

Yup.



"Public" property always leads to clashes of interest that are resolved politically. This leads to more government power and more factions among the people. Your argument here is simply for YOUR view of how confiscated private property should be used. Such arguments are endless and will be resolved in favor of whoever has the most political clout. The better approach is to get government out of it. Then if you and your friends want to set aside some property to use as a feeding station for vagrants, GREAT! Then the issues will be resolved by market forces, including the will to act charitably with YOUR OWN property.

So what do you think about Mountains, Lakes and Rivers? If there were no parks, the wealthy would own all this property. How would the commoners have an opportunity to enjoy them?

[Acala]

So what do you think about Mountains, Lakes and Rivers? If there were no parks, the wealthy would own all this property. How would the commoners have an opportunity to enjoy them?

I own property and I'm not wealthy. My neighbors own property and they aren't wealthy. People can join their wealth together and buy parks for their use. Also, the "wealthy" very well might want to make their property available to others for free (it's called philanthropy and is common) or for a small fee. There are many different ways that people can enjoy mountains etc. without being wealthy and without resorting to government theft and violence. Most of the land in the eastern US is privately owned but people still are able to enjoy mountains, rivers, etc.

If the only way a particular activity can occur is through government force, then something is wrong with that activity.

[Tpoints]

So what do you think about Mountains, Lakes and Rivers? If there were no parks, the wealthy would own all this property. How would the commoners have an opportunity to enjoy them?

What are you? Crazy? Where did you get the idea that enjoying mountains was a human right?

[heavenlyboy34]

Anyone have a link to the full story in the OP? I'd like to share it.

[sailingaway]

Anyone have a link to the full story in the OP? I'd like to share it.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/...d-to-stop.html

[Tpoints]

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/...d-to-stop.html

DAMNIT, another Michael Snyder article with a misleading title?
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/...or-cities.html

Title : "Feeding The Homeless Banned In Major Cities All Over America"
Actual content :
Mayor Nutter recently banned feeding homeless people in many parts of Philadelphia where homeless people are known to congregate....
a group of activists down in Orlando, Florida were arrested by police for feeding the homeless in defiance of a city ordinance.... (there's a limit, not a ban)

Here's a different example :
New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Obviously, the author of this article conveniently lumps these altogether to make you think that the government wants homeless people to starve and/or wants to mandate what the most needy people get to eat...Snyder is a champion and cherry picking & dishonesty.

[acptulsa]

They did that in Tampa too, and they don't care if you're religious or not. Regular people, or groups of regular people can't feed the homeless.

To a proper Christian, this amounts to trusting the government with the care of your immortal soul. Surely no one is dumb enough to trust government's competence that much.

DAMNIT, another Michael Snyder article with a misleading title?
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/...or-cities.html

Title : "Feeding The Homeless Banned In Major Cities All Over America"
Actual content :
Mayor Nutter recently banned feeding homeless people in many parts of Philadelphia where homeless people are known to congregate....
a group of activists down in Orlando, Florida were arrested by police for feeding the homeless in defiance of a city ordinance.... (there's a limit, not a ban)

Here's a different example :
New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Obviously, the author of this article conveniently lumps these altogether to make you think that the government wants homeless people to starve and/or wants to mandate what the most needy people get to eat...Snyder is a champion and cherry picking & dishonesty.

All right, so 'banned' is a bit too strong a word for the title. Nonetheless, Philadelphia forcing the homeless to commute for their food, 'limitations' in Orlando, and New York City officials that think it better people have nothing at all in their bellies than something not on their official 'approved wholesome' list, are all interference in a good thing. And given the words of Jesus of Nazareth, they also qualify as interference in the practice of Christianity. Sometimes 'cherry picking' is dishonesty, sometimes it's just 'placing emphasis'.

Government has no business micromanaging charity. Just because governments have found that charity can be a hell of a racket if you get enough taxpayer funds involved doesn't mean that government is justified in declaring themselves a monopoly on the thing. And God help the poor if government ever does establish that monopoly. Charging us so much in tax that we can barely afford to do this thing is bad. Trashing the economy so we're even harder up to have something to spare is worse. This is unacceptable.

Just because there's such a thing as food poisoning doesn't mean feeding someone should automatically be considered assault.