Man Arrested for Feeding the Homeless

Yup. Feed all the waterfowl you want on Lake Eola, just not the people.

Actually, I should correct my 1.1. You can feed the people, just not 25 or more at one time without a permit. The city issues only 2 permits per year per organization.

What happened was people complained that the park was being used as a soup kitchen, which I can't really blame them for. Thus the city's ordinance. Groups skirted the ordinance for some time while the ACLU became involved and decided to challenge the law in the federal courts. The ACLU case comes up in July 2008. What the groups did was set up seperate areas being careful to distribute to no more than 24 people at a time. However, there were apparently some conflicts between police monitoring the feeding and the groups distributing the food so the groups alleged harassment. One day I guess they decided enough was enough and at about person #30 being fed in the park an officer approached Montanez and asked him for ID intending to give him a misdemeanor citation. Montanez, irritated the officer by throwing the ID instead of handing it to him. Thus the arrest.

I'm not supporting the city's actions, they certainly should have done something else, but there is more to the story than just a guy getting arrested for feeding homeless people.

OK... so can I feed a flock of pigeons?

I think they still allow that.

:0)

*

I didn't say it was morally right, I just explained the reasoning for the ordinance and what it entails.

man, so if Jesus tried to feed people bread and wine he'd be in a heap of trouble. Then he'd claim he had no i.d. and he'd probably get tazered.

I laughed so hard at the mental image of Jesus being tasered that I think I just got leprosy.

I bet it'd pop up on You Tube and then people would claim he was a publicity whore and was just asking for it.

man, so if Jesus tried to feed people bread and wine he'd be in a heap of trouble.

Hehe, if he did it in a public park, then yes.

And He spoke unto the Romans and said, "Don't taze me, bro."

I work in downtown DC, which means I see more than my fair share of the hardcore homeless. I'm not talking about people who are temporarily down: they're in the shelters or out looking for work. These are folks with extreme problems that no one seems to care for much. And I do mean no one. You are just as likely to see someone wearing an Obama or Hillary button ignore them as you are to see a Republican do so.

The problem isn't the trash and the litter: it's the fact that these people sit as a constant reminder that there but for the grace of God go I. Makes us uncomfortable. Not uncomfortable enough to support a tax increase to get these people into some sort of institution and make sure they are well cared for, but uncomfortable enough that we want to think of them as less than human, as vermin that we want ousted from our clean public spaces. Then it's easier to rationalize criminalizing their feeding: after all, if these people are no better than rats or cockroaches, then feeding them is a positive threat to our precious bodily fluids, is it not?

AAcid, my personal apathy towards homeless on the streets isn't due to some disgusting dehumanization of the poor downtrodden, but that was a good attempt at demonizing anyone who's not "I Heart Bums."

How do you get to the point of having "extreme problems"?

There are homeless shelters.
There are soup kitchens.
There are churches that would help them.

If they're mentally unstable, there are volunteer organizations.
If they're addicted to drugs or alcohol, there are free rehab clinics.

I feel no sympathy for a physically able-bodied homeless person between 16 and 56. There are services available to help you get back on your feet. Use them.

Jack, I hope you are a volunteer working for the homeless, although I doubt it. You'd know that the shelters are overflowing, services for the mentally ill are stretched way too thin and are often provided by new grads who don't even have a master's degree in the field. Staff are severely underpaid...I'm talking not even a livable wage so the turnover is horrendous. People usually have to leave the shelters at 6am and return at 6pm, if they're lucky enough to get a mat to sleep on. Mixed into the homeless population are the drug addicts,,,and that's not most of them. Plus, did you ever try to look for a job with no phone, no place to shower, carrying your clothes on your back? Free rehab clinics?? Where do you see that? State funded treatment can have two year waiting list. Program funding has been decimated. Everything has been cut. It's a real crisis. I wish I knew about the churches and volunteer organizations you speak of. I think you're dreaming. The Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy are made on the backs of the poor. Think about it.

Bottom line is yes, there are services but they are limited, meager and overcrowded.

They may be physically able, but they are not mentally able. Most would have been institutionalized at taxpayer expense prior to the truly misguided change in the involuntary commitment laws in the 1980s. Their mental impairments are such that they actively reject help and need far more intervention than a volunteer organization can provide. You and I are merely one brain injury or chemical imbalance away from behaving exactly as they do.

Again, this is the hard core homeless, not the mere down and out. My experience in working at soup kitchens and shelters has taught me that there is quite a difference between the two.

Lake Eola is a beautiful park and it should not be used for feeding the homeless. The city has put money into the park to make it better for its citizens. Personally, going down to the park and seeing a bunch of homeless folks laying around sleeping and doing whatever is not my idea of a nice day at the park. If anything, the city should work with these groups to find a suitable location to feed the homeless.

I agree with you, I don't think the park should substitute for homeless shelters. As I said above, I can't blame people for complaining. However, the city did not take any action to solve the problem and hence the current PR nightmare. It seems like they just hoped the homeless would go away like stray dogs. Plus, from what I understand (and I may be wrong) the city had several police details monitoring the meal distributors, taking photos, writing down license plates, etc. Was this really necessary? Given the murder and violent crime rates in Orlando I would think law enforcement resources would have done more good elsewhere.

The city has put money into the park to make it better for its citizens.

What about it's homeless citizens? Why should you lose the right to the use of common, public spaces because you don't have a place to live?

Its disgusting that not only does the United States not provide a social safety net to get people off the streets, but actually punishes groups that try to pick up the slack because it forces people to confront the consequences of every man for himself capitalism. Whats even worse though, is the way that government violates equal protection by limiting free food to those who don't need it. This law specifically bans feeding homeless people, a company is free to distribute free samples or hold a promotional barbeque so long as those benefiting from the free food could otherwise afford it.

Sorry, I cant remember if its this law in particular or a similar ordinance in Los Vegas that specifically bans feeding the homeless. The article isn't very clear on this point. Laws that are transparently written to keep a marginalized group out of a public space still violate equal protection though.

Well, if we bombed the homeless that would take care of that.

Bombs Not Food!

"What's next, being arrested for giving a dollar to a person standing on the street corner begging???"

Give that dollar to a female on the corner & your in deep sh*t.....

The signs of the time are really on the wall when in America it's a crime to feed the hungry.

The signs of the times are really on the wall when people sensationally overgeneralize, probably without reading the article.

Nice dig at China, by the way. I really doubt they're the ones making your Happy Meals.

Nice links, Passion. Thanks.

Ummm... good for you?

It feels that way here, a lot of the time, LiberalRebel. I grew up in the 50's, and frankly, I do not recognize this country anymore. And it is all done in the name of "family values," mind you! I am glad that you can speak sympathetically to those of us who are amazed and horrified by the horrors our "Christian" leaders are doing to others in our name.

Cassandra, I was born in 52 myself. I know what you mean about not recognizing this country anymore. I've seen corporate interests take over the country's economy while the politicians all shout what great family values they have while decrying their opposition.

Thanks. I would have hated to be the prosecutor on this one.

You could start killing the homeless for purposes of public aesthetics.

Cries of inhumanity are, at best, sensationalist.

I'm afraid that this is tantamount to, and also a precursor to, just the sort of suggestion you are making. That was my point.

And now, we've firmly established that we're in "sensationalist and baseless emotional appeal" territory.

Then again, I could be wrong, as everyone knows that enforcing a "no large crowds of homeless people in the park" law is tantamount to "shoot 'em all, boyos!"

Jack, I don't quite get where you are coming from on this. It doesn't seem quite like you, from other stuff of yours I have read, to carry such an animus against what seemed to me to be pretty straight reporting of an unjustifiable law.

everyone knows that enforcing a "no large crowds of homeless people in the park" law is tantamount to "shoot 'em all, boyos!"

This is, of course, an intentional exaggeration -- but surely you know that failure to have empathy for other human beings in massively unfortunate circumstances is the first step to finding reasons to imprison or eliminate them, just to get them out of sight. "Out of sight, out of mind." What bothers me is your anger at people trying to help them -- as if you were not aware that, but for the grace .., you could be one of them. No man is an island; do unto others as you would have them do unto you were you in their place; etc., etc. All trite because so obviously true.

So -- where exactly are you coming from on this and why all the anger?

So -- where exactly are you coming from on this and why all the anger?

I'm not a fan of empty moralizing, especially when it requires a great deal of, to put it nicely, "hyperbole."

What bothers me is your anger at people trying to help them -- as if you were not aware that, but for the grace .., you could be one of them.

I'm not angry at people who try to help others.

However, I don't believe in legislation that puts no limitations on actions, nor do I believe in ignoring the details of the actual article in favor of going on self-righteous rants.

The law prohibited feeding crowds of over 25 in a public park without a permit. That's a far cry from "inhumanly outlawing feeding the hungry."

My intentional exaggeration is hardly less accurate than the exaggerations which preceded mine.