(no subject)
Jun. 5th, 2011 11:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stormdogI feel like this exchange I'm having in Facebook regarding some Food Not Bombs folks who were arrested in Orlando, Florida for feeding the homeless (article: link) is worth sharing.
Me: I have so much frustration over this.
Someone else: Actually, I hate to say it, but I can see how the ordinance makes sense. First off it only applies to feeding over 25 people and then requires a permit (so it can be done). The "only 2 permits per year per park" makes sense as thus no park becomes a regular food pantry and makes sanitation and health inspection less of an issue. As for the arrests, the group tried to fight the ordinance and lost before the arrests happened. I don't see this as much as anti-homeless sentiment but rather as measures to protect the intended use of parks and such.
Me: I don't know that I can speak to the intended use of a park exactly. But I feel that it being public land, there is a right to use it and gather in a group.
If not in a public space like a park, then where should a group like Food Not Bombs, who are committed to nothing more or less than providing food for the hungry, do this kind of thing? If they have to rent a building or some other venue, it means they're taking resources that would have gone to feeding hungry people and putting them into overhead that they wouldn't need if not for bureaucratic requirements.
I think sanitary issues are overblown. If this is a public park in an area with lots of homeless there will be sanitation issues anyway. Some porta-potties would be nice. Garbage cans. I know it wont be perfect, but it wouldn't be perfect anyway; there's always garbage around parks. To be honest, I suspect the homeless population would be less responsible for that than most as they generally can't afford all the candy bars and bags of potato chips and things that are some of the more common urban detritus. Though I'll grant that, if Food Not Bombs are using disposable flatware and things, that would contribute some mess. And again, it would help if a municipal group were to try and work with a group committed to doing public good by providing some easy things like big garbage cans to be around when these things are going on, instead of looking at the homeless as a nuisance issue to be encouraged to go elsewhere so they don't have to deal with them.
'Intended use' feels like such a privileged statement to me. Most people don't want things like homeless shelters and food kitchens in their back yards. But everywhere is someone's back yard. A public space that's centrally located in a population center is wonderful for a group of people that generally don't have cars or easy access to transportation. I'm only guessing at some applicable factors here since I don't know the town at all, but I can only imagine how much it would cost to rent an interior space for something like this in downtown Orlando, and how much less useful the effort would be if they were out on the fringes where people couldn't get to them.
The health inspection of food is kind of a red herring too. Which is healthier; eating food that a group of anarchic neo-hippies are making fresh, possibly without food service training, or rooting through dumpsters for scraps to eat? I'll vote for the hippies. I suppose someone might try to hold the city liable for illness incurred by eating there because they weren't doing inspections, but that seems like a stretch (though admittedly I'm not familiar with that kind of litigation). If anybody, I'd think that the Food Not Bombs people would be on the receiving end of that kind of suit.
I have some level of emotional reaction here that may lead to me being not entirely objective. That said, I feel this is another example of laws penalizing people for being poor and those who want to help the poor. The two permits per year rule feels to me like people who have no concept of what it's like to be poor creating legislation to make sure that they aren't troubled by hungry people asking for handouts while they're enjoying their games of frisbee. Out of sight, out of mind? The article says (and I can only go by the way it's presented there as I haven't seen the legislation) that this specifically restricts public feedings. That this is a law targeted at people trying to feed the homeless to make sure that all that pesky altruism doesn't interfere with the important things like making sure local homeowners have a nice place to enjoy a far more privileged existence.
In all honesty if this was happening here, I'd be part of a protest against it in a minute. I'd organize a big group of people to go out there and feed the homeless, and they can lock me the hell up with the rest of them.
------------
This has made me think and wonder a little bit again about communitry activism and organization. It's something that I might reasonably look into doing some of, especially once I have my degree.
Really? Illegal to feed the homeless? Really?
Me: I have so much frustration over this.
Someone else: Actually, I hate to say it, but I can see how the ordinance makes sense. First off it only applies to feeding over 25 people and then requires a permit (so it can be done). The "only 2 permits per year per park" makes sense as thus no park becomes a regular food pantry and makes sanitation and health inspection less of an issue. As for the arrests, the group tried to fight the ordinance and lost before the arrests happened. I don't see this as much as anti-homeless sentiment but rather as measures to protect the intended use of parks and such.
Me: I don't know that I can speak to the intended use of a park exactly. But I feel that it being public land, there is a right to use it and gather in a group.
If not in a public space like a park, then where should a group like Food Not Bombs, who are committed to nothing more or less than providing food for the hungry, do this kind of thing? If they have to rent a building or some other venue, it means they're taking resources that would have gone to feeding hungry people and putting them into overhead that they wouldn't need if not for bureaucratic requirements.
I think sanitary issues are overblown. If this is a public park in an area with lots of homeless there will be sanitation issues anyway. Some porta-potties would be nice. Garbage cans. I know it wont be perfect, but it wouldn't be perfect anyway; there's always garbage around parks. To be honest, I suspect the homeless population would be less responsible for that than most as they generally can't afford all the candy bars and bags of potato chips and things that are some of the more common urban detritus. Though I'll grant that, if Food Not Bombs are using disposable flatware and things, that would contribute some mess. And again, it would help if a municipal group were to try and work with a group committed to doing public good by providing some easy things like big garbage cans to be around when these things are going on, instead of looking at the homeless as a nuisance issue to be encouraged to go elsewhere so they don't have to deal with them.
'Intended use' feels like such a privileged statement to me. Most people don't want things like homeless shelters and food kitchens in their back yards. But everywhere is someone's back yard. A public space that's centrally located in a population center is wonderful for a group of people that generally don't have cars or easy access to transportation. I'm only guessing at some applicable factors here since I don't know the town at all, but I can only imagine how much it would cost to rent an interior space for something like this in downtown Orlando, and how much less useful the effort would be if they were out on the fringes where people couldn't get to them.
The health inspection of food is kind of a red herring too. Which is healthier; eating food that a group of anarchic neo-hippies are making fresh, possibly without food service training, or rooting through dumpsters for scraps to eat? I'll vote for the hippies. I suppose someone might try to hold the city liable for illness incurred by eating there because they weren't doing inspections, but that seems like a stretch (though admittedly I'm not familiar with that kind of litigation). If anybody, I'd think that the Food Not Bombs people would be on the receiving end of that kind of suit.
I have some level of emotional reaction here that may lead to me being not entirely objective. That said, I feel this is another example of laws penalizing people for being poor and those who want to help the poor. The two permits per year rule feels to me like people who have no concept of what it's like to be poor creating legislation to make sure that they aren't troubled by hungry people asking for handouts while they're enjoying their games of frisbee. Out of sight, out of mind? The article says (and I can only go by the way it's presented there as I haven't seen the legislation) that this specifically restricts public feedings. That this is a law targeted at people trying to feed the homeless to make sure that all that pesky altruism doesn't interfere with the important things like making sure local homeowners have a nice place to enjoy a far more privileged existence.
In all honesty if this was happening here, I'd be part of a protest against it in a minute. I'd organize a big group of people to go out there and feed the homeless, and they can lock me the hell up with the rest of them.
------------
This has made me think and wonder a little bit again about communitry activism and organization. It's something that I might reasonably look into doing some of, especially once I have my degree.
Really? Illegal to feed the homeless? Really?
