Why is it illegal to feed the homeless in Florida?

WTF? Florida really is a shit hole. Can’t wait until it falls into the sea.

Florida is the dick of America.

It’s illegal in CA. to feed the homeless from food prepared in your own kitchen. There was a story here a few years ago about a woman who spent her social security money to help feed the homeless in her neighborhood, made sandwiches and soup and was told she could not do this. What a bunch of bull. Dumpster diving okay, wholesome home made food that is not prepared in a commercial kitchen, not okay. Pffft!

Because good upstanding people want the homeless to just scatter away so they don’t have to see them or think about them. Feeding them works contrary to that, so it’s illegal.

This is almost certainly the result of one of those ordinances dreamed up by local chamber of commerce types concerned about the perception that there might be homeless people in the neighborhood. Bad enough that the “secret” might get out, but absolutely unthinkable that they be allowed to concentrate where their true numbers might be appreciated. As usual with heartless measures designed to hide the poor, the scheme had the opposite effect. This upgrade of “don’t feed the pigeons” only focused the national spotlight on the callous indifference of political buffoons.

”“The experts have all said that if you’re going to feed them to get them from breakfast to lunch to dinner, all you’re doing is enabling that cycle of homelessness. They don’t interact with anyone, they don’t receive the aid that they need.” ” Right. Feeding them one day out of the week is going to perpetuate the cycle. Jerks.

Is this like not being allowed to feed the bears in Yellowstone? It is okay to watch from a distance and take pictures, but don’t do anything to encourage them to get close.

No, it’s not comparable.

What makes it ridiculous is about 20 years ago in San Francisco, the leader of Food Not Bombs got sent to prison for feeding the homeless food discarded by a bakery (put into special containers so it stayed hygenic) It was his “third strike” so he was given 20+ years—I can’t remember specifically. Because this was such a harsh sentence for something so minor, there was a ton of money spent on appeals and it became known as the “Billion Dollar Bagel”

I’ve heard about it and I’m so disgusted by it. I’m in Tampa and have been wanting to go protest in Fort Lauderdale, but don’t really have a means of transportation. They’ve tried to move many feedings out of the area and into other areas such as Ybor (so I heard) to get them out of the downtown area.
I’m part of an organization that feeds people and we get bothered by the cops frequently. According to the cops who are on our side, the main reason they intervene is because the bigwigs 50 stories above us find it “unsightly”. What kind of careless, heartless being would go out of their way to disassemble us? I guess they have nothing else to do but masturbate to the money they obtained through the exploitation of others.
I’m getting the hell out of the area, but at the same time I feel like I’m taking the easy road and leaving a disaster.

The article is a story about a situation in Ft. Lauderdale and not all of Florida, so give the state a break.

It’s a new ordinance, and there is a safety factor behind it’s creation. Granted, it isn’t effectively described based upon the mayor’s quotes cited. What is questionable is why it would be acceptable for Mr. Abbott to offer the same food and service on private property vs. public. Isn’t the same safety factor involved?

Surely there must be more to this story than what is offered in this one article.

These things are never quite as simplistic as they seem to be portrayed in popular media in 30 seconds or less or in… ugh… Facebook in a one-frame meme.

If this was your neighborhood, or the neighborhood of a business you were trying to run (especially one which depended on foot traffic or other small-scale retail), you probably would not want someone to set up a soup kitchen totally at their own convenience, no matter how charitable you might feel personally. For this reason, municipalities – nearly ALL municipalities, probably including even your own – require that those who would engage in such charitable acts obtain permits. The permits are intended to see that “the public” (which includes uninvolved businesses, traffic, the homeless themselves, and the city – who could face expensive legal liability if they permit an unsafe operation that later harms someone) are all protected from foreseeable harm.

Part of the permitting process involves an approval of the means and mode of food preparation, transport, storage and serving – very similar to the way the Health Department requires minimum levels of sanitation and other requirements with a retail restaurant or food processor. In addition, since this is an outdoor operation, part of the permit required the permittee to provide portable toilets, which on its face doesn’t seem to be a ridiculous requirement.

Granted, homelessness is a big problem. Cities could be doing a better job of helping people on an emergency basis (and not putting huge roadblocks in the path of those who volunteer to do it for them, or at least help out a bit). I agree with all of that.

But the issue here is not “they arrested an old man for feeding the homeless!” They arrested an old man for defying the requirement to obtain a permit for the operation he wanted to run, and for his refusal to comply with “lawful orders”, whether you agree with the orders or not.

I didn’t know about it, but it doesn’t surprise me. As others have pointed out similar laws are around the country even in California @tinyfaery. I love FL. I love living here with all it’s faults, and there are quite a few we could challenge here.

I wouldn’t want homeless people coming and going in my neighborhood all day long, because it hurts my property value. That might sound pretty awful, but I live in a place that it would hurt my property value, and I would assume no one wants to lose money on their property whether you paid $50k for it or $500k. It also can cause a loss of business in commercial areas if people are loitering, or if homeless people are constantly around. I can’t wrong with giving a random homeless person on the street some food. I’ve done it. Something I have in my purse, or leftovers.

I want the homeless to be helped. I want to provide shelter for them if they will take it, and I want them to be safe, and I want to get them mental health help if they need it and will accept it. In FL people constantly are at intersections and interstate off ramps asking for money, especially southeast FL I used to see it. I’ve never heard of anyone getting arrested for giving them money or leftover food. I hate when people look down on the homeless or feel no empathy for them. You never know what their story is and how they got there.

It’s all selfishness.
@CWOTUS People take time out of our lives each week to do food shares. We’re already busy people and we constantly face unexpected events to keep things going.
So we can’t legally give money (okay, people can’t ASK for it). Okay…but now we can’t give food?! What amount of time and money would it cost for things like porta-potties? Would the health laws forbid people to “dumpster” dive, a big part of our organization? It only makes it difficult for people doing food shares, and there’s minimal upsides to it. The people we share with are very appreciative, so quit trying to stop us. These laws only please a small group of selfish people who are clueless to what it even means to do a food share or be homeless. Sour fucking grapes.

@CWOTUS I agree that things are never as simple as they seem, but you seem to be doing some oversimplifying of your own. It’s not the “getting charged for breaking the law” part that’s upsetting people. It’s the “there’s a law against this sort of thing” part. Nor do I see how your “lot’s of municipalities do it” point in any way tells us that it’s acceptable for municipalities to do it.

There is also the matter of Abbott having already fought and won this case five times previously since 1999. The state is persisting in harassing him despite the fact that the courts have long since signed off on his actions. Should the government be allowed to continue citing him despite how many times he has already won his case in court?

Furthermore, let’s run a little experiment in ideological consistency. Do you support more government red tape? Do you think government should take care of the homeless instead of letting individuals address the problem through private charity? Not according to everything else you’ve ever written on Fluther. So why in the case of this man? Why not just have a rule indemnifying the people from the consequences of private charity?

I frequently like to play Devil’s Advocate. Lord knows (something else I don’t believe in) he could sure use one from time to time. I didn’t know all of the facts that you presented; I just winged an answer on “why would municipalities have onerous permitting requirements regarding charitable activities such as this?”

And though I’m not one for any foolish consistency, I do not in general support the government claims that “we have to oversee everything”. My response was only meant to demonstrate why it is that many in government think that they need to, and why – despite your claim that he is being harassed “for feeding the homeless” – it still seems to be a permitting dispute from the little bit that I have read.

Finally: Indemnify people from the consequences of potential bad acts? Are you mad, man? Governments are run by lawyers. They don’t like to indemnify nobody for nothing. What’s in it for them if they do that? But seriously, a law that would purport to indemnify those who would run such an activity will only shift the burden of liability onto the city that permits the activity. I may read more about the specifics of this case later, but probably not tonight.

I read the article and I need to know if the government is withholding permission for a portable toilet on location?

Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler said, “All we’re saying is he can feed the next block over.” Is there a location 1 block over that works, or is he saying that as long as the guy is off the beach, it’s okay?

NPR “On Oct. 22, the city’s commissioners passed a measure that requires feeding sites to be more than 500 feet away from each other and 500 feet from residential properties. Only one group is allowed to share food with the homeless per city block.”

Much more informative if you care to read more about the ordinance. No more than one homeless station per block, and any homeless feeding station must be a city block from residential property.
I would imagine that “Organizations distributing food outdoors would also need the permission of the property owner and would have to provide portable toilets for use by workers and those being fed.” would apply to any food venues. Outdoor is no longer synonymous with ‘unrestrained’.

Overall it looks to me like drowning the undesirables in a sea of red tape that could be well meaning on a case by case basis.