What was their crime? Feeding the homeless in a park | Hacker News Reader

What was their crime? Feeding the homeless in a park

cltampa.com

40 pointsrmason32 comments

Something smells a little fishy about this article. First, let's not vilify the police that told these individuals to stop. They were breaking the law, and the police did their jobs. Two years ago, I was selling t-shirts without a permit next to Madison Square garden, and was arrested. Before the officer took me in, he spent 10 minutes talking to me, getting to know me, and explaining the law to me. I guess the guy could have turned a blind on, but i'm glad he didn't. Since then, I've had a decent amount of exposure obtaining permits in the cities I've lived in. The process in some cities is horrid, but others, not so much. Regardless, there is red tape that one has to go through to put on "events" like this. That being said, what would get me angry about this story is if someone in their group tried to work with the city to obtain a permit with their restricted time frame, and was denied.

There's a busy Reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5mqmpd/tampa_activist...

Along with all the usual and boring arguments you'd expect to see about homelessness (and which are already playing out here now too), there are a handful of comments from people who live or work in the area. They're saying that it's not a popular area for homeless to congregate anyway and that this action is more likely motivated by the National College Championship event in Tampa rather than out of any concern for food safety, littering, or homeless issues.

And what a better world it would be if everyone had to actually get to know a few homeless people before they could make any proclamations about homeless policies.

Civil disobedience works, when you create a mediapathic event.

In previous times this has happened in florida, (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/90-year-old-man-2-pastors-charge...) the people arrested were wearing clerical collars, as is also right and proper.

Practically speaking, if this media story goes viral it could spurn a large fundraising effort for the area. Won't solve the root problem but it'd be a hell of a bandaid.

Yep.

> You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. (https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....)

"I am going to keep making you embarrass yourself in public until you finally come around".

These laws aren't as crazy as the seem at first glance. The idea behind them is that in order to end homelessness you need to provide comprehensive services, not just meals. By offering a single service you are decreasing the likelihood of visiting a location with those extra services. I've heard talks that indicate that directing people towards service centers is a more effective way of helping those in need. Unfortunately a lot of these laws are poorly written and lack the requirements to fund services that would help make a real difference.

They're exactly as crazy as they seem at first glance

That's just plain sick. By the way, aren't soup kitchens a thing in the US?

The last time I had read about this sort of thing, welfare payments (debit cards?) of some form had largely replaced what soup kitchens used to do, the conspiracy theory being basically "out of sight, out of mind", as soup kitchen lineups as we had in the 30's is extremely bad publicity for the government.

I'm not sure how true this is though.

Yes but like most things the funding it gets depends on the city. Homeless programs in San Francisco are well funded and better than most cities. The majority of cities in the US are not like that.

Yes but generally they feed people on private not public property. But yeah, let's just keep making parks designated homeless camping grounds, I'm sure you would feel safe letting your kids run around there.

Maybe dealing with the root issues that cause homelessness (mental illness, debt, drugs, etc) should be more important than whether well-off people 'feel' safe? People being dirty and homeless doesn't make them automatically dangerous.

Do you believe that world without debt and people falling into addictions can be created?

We can certainly have a world where debt doesn't make people homeless, but addiction is a much more difficult problem. We can do a lot better there with better mental health care.

I feel like a world where people who have addictions are treated rather than criminalized can exist.

Debt isn't a problem in itself, but I don't feel like there's enough support for people who find themselves in rough financial situations. Dealing with money and debt isn't that hard, but you need to understand it and I think there's loads of people that don't.

-I now live in a rural area where I've yet to see someone homeless. However, when I lived in more urban areas, no homeless person ever made me feel unsafe.

Yes, if I was having a bad day, being asked for some change for food could be a nuisance (in particular the twelfth time the question was asked while you were already running late for an appointment!) - but overall, when living in a city, the people who on occasion made me feel unsafe didn't appear to be homeless.

Just out of curiosity - if being homeless is sufficient grounds for not being allowed to frequent public spaces, where do you suggest people so affected gather? After all, by definition, they haven't got access to private spaces, no? (Yes, this is a somewhat snarky question, I'll admit.)

"Think of the children" is a lazy argument.

I do not have kids, but I personally am more afraid of "alt-rights", fascists and neo-Nazis taking over both entire cities and public discussions.

Been homeless for a short time myself and was connected with the "scene" before and after that, homeless people are a quite peaceful crowd and often show more kindness towards other people and animals than "ordinary" people.

Because you have to have a special permit in order to offer free food to the needy in city parks. But obtaining a city permit to feed the homeless twice a week—to set up a table and open bags of chips and bagels and spoon organic beans and rice from a pot—can be pricey because of the insurance policy the city requires.

Cool.

Of course you need a permit. What if the food is spoiled and people start getting sick? This is a really, really irresponsible thing to do.

Similar organizations (churches, nonprofits, etc.) don't generally need a permit if they're not selling the food, when the target population aren't homeless people. For example, a Boy Scout group can have a 4th of July picnic in a public park, usually without a permit needed, as can your church or your bowling league or whatever. Traditionally there haven't been any laws at all about it. Recently, laws have been passed by some municipalities specifically because they considered churches and charities feeding homeless people in public parks to be a problem, not because of general concerns over food safety.

It depends on your definition of "need".

If you are giving food to other people (be it in a grocery store, in a restaurant, or giving it away) it's reasonable to expect that you can give a reasonable guarantee that that food is not spoiled.

You don't need a permit for that. A permit is a piece of paper signed by someone who will never see this food.

You also need a permit to open a store of any kind, which doesn't mean the guy who signs it will ever walk into it.

If you feed people in a public setting you need a perm, which is fairly easy to get. My guess they didn't even bother to comply with local ordinances.

So lame I think this was made just to trigger a police reaction for political gain and web hits.

>Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

Did you read the article?

The article states that they needed to pay for insurance to do this, which they didn't do. It's a public park and if they want to turn it into a soup kitchen then they should also have to pay for it.

And this is why some conservatives get angry at liberals for laughing at them for their attachment to the principle of keeping the government out of their affairs.

The park belongs to the community, and these people are choosing to feed homeless people using private funds in this park. The government should have the sense to use discretion when their is a technical violation of the law and consider whether the spirit of the law is being broken. Politicians and public servants are supposed to be a proxy for the will of the people, not dictators who decide what is proper behavior for themselves.

Insurance is an imperialist construct of the patriarchal white capitalists. Not a thing for these ideology champions.

Translation please?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com