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?

[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.

[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.

[FrancisMarion]

// Jimmy two times.

[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.

[kathy88]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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)

[heavenlyboy34]

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

[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.

[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

[sailingaway]

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.

THey did ban it, at least for homemade food. The bagels were just the subject of the story. And it was hurricane Sandy. Don't know why I typed Sandy Hook...

[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.

[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.

[Tpoints]

repost deleted. guys, PLEASE don't post Michael Snyder articles without fact checking them.

[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.

[jkr]

behold
the WAR on POVERTY

$#@! "guBBermint"

ALL OF IT

[acptulsa]

behold
the WAR on POVERTY

$#@! "guBBermint"

ALL OF IT

The war on poverty bred more poverty. So, now they're waging war on those in poverty. So this is the penalty for being an embarassment to an incompetent government.

And as they declare more wars on this and that aspect of American life, they just can't understand why Americans are ready to declare war on government.

[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]

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.

Oh, save yourself the "If I didn't pay taxes I'd be able to donate" excuse. Yes, taxes does take away from your disposable income, but unless you planned on donating most of your taxed amount, this is not an argument at all (The funny thing is, I often hear the same people encouraging people to take advantage of some tax credit, tax deduction, almost as though they forget that charitable donations are always deductible)

Anyway, nobody likes restrictions, I don't like government any more than you do. But I actually start to think so of the rationale is to protect homeless people from being poisoned or abused by people pretending to help them. I know it sounds crazy, but I wonder what the reaction would be if that ever happened. Would people start calling for the government to investigate or save homeless people when they've been hurt? Or would we be happy that people are "taking care of the matter themselves"?

[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?

[sailingaway]

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.

Are these wrong or just selected (cherry picking) to fit his agenda? Because I don't know him, but this is awful, imho.