Homelessness

Government is Just All of Us Together, Preventing Each Other From Feeding the Hungry

|

For the "why do libertarians get so mad at the state, which only exists so the less well off won't get screwed by the wealthy and powerful?" file, via NBC News.

In Daytona Beach, Florida, a couple—Debbie and Chico Jimenez—out of the kindness of their hearts have for the past year on Wednesdays offered full cooked meals to the city's homeless in Manatee Island park. Over 100 hungry are typically fed.

Naturally, they've been fined by the city for it, along with some of their helpers—including a wheelchair-bound man who himself just escaped homelessness. (Maybe this fine can push him back in it! See this previous article from me about how even the pettiest of state fines can ruin lives.)

The crew of criminal philanthropists owe a total of $2,238 in fines.

Why? Some people don't like what homeless people do in the park, including human acts of excretion and drunkenness. (As if the people feeding them invented the homeless, or provided or police the park.)

Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood stands by his act:

"They were told (the previous Wednesday) that if they come back there, they would be cited and they could risk going to jail," Chitwood said. "There is a segment of the homeless population that is homeless by choice. I don't want to impugn them all. But some are homeless because they are sex offenders, substance abusers and bank robbers. That's why we ask (Good Samaritans) to coordinate with our social service agencies, because they know who needs to be served."

Daytona Beach isn't alone in making sure care for the hungry is centralized and bureaucratized:

According to a report co-released by the National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, during the past seven years Gainesville, Fla., began "enforcing a rule limiting the number of meals that soup kitchens may serve to 130 people in one day;" Phoenix, Ariz., "used zoning laws to stop a local church from serving breakfast to community members, including many homeless people, outside a local church;" and Myrtle Beach, S.C., "adopted an ordinance that restricts food sharing with homeless people in public parks."

I wrote for Reason back in 2013 about a lawsuit over a similar situation in Dallas that ended with making feeding the homeless a thoughtcrime, OK if done for a religious motive, not if not.

NEXT: It's Hard to Have Your Voice Count in the E.U.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There is a segment of the homeless population that is homeless by choice.

    I don’t see either (a) the relevance of this or (b) how it fits with what he says next.

    I don’t want to impugn them all.

    But I will anyway!

    But some are homeless because they are sex offenders, substance abusers and bank robbers.

    Again, what does this have to do with fining people who feed them? Are these the ones who are “homeless by choice”? How is a crook who has served his time and been certified by our courts as being fit to walk the streets somehow not fit to recieve charity?

    Does this semi-literate goon’s word salad have any semantic content at all?

    1. How is a crook who has served his time and been certified by our courts as being fit to walk the streets somehow not fit to recieve charity?

      It’s almost as they care more about control than actually helping people.

    2. People who are homeless by choice don’t deserve charity. Duh.

    3. I actually thought he meant the sex abusers, bank robbers, and substance abusers were the ones who did deserve charity, because they were not homeless by choice. (I envisioned a rough life from being an ex-con, resulting in involuntary homelessness.) But it’s hard to figure out what he meant. People say all sorts of dumb things to reporter.

  2. “It was a rude and simple society and there were no laws
    to punish a starving man for expressing his need for food, such as have
    been established in a more humanitarian age; and the lack of any
    organised police permitted such persons to pester the wealthy without
    any great danger.”

    G. K. Chesterton on the era of St. Francis

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks09/0900611.txt

    1. I will always love Chesterton, the man who looked like he caused a famine.

  3. But some are homeless because they are sex offenders, substance abusers and bank robbers.

    Those people don’t need to eat?

    I don’t think this dick really gets the whole charity thing.

    Maybe Tulpa will show up and explain to us why this was the appropriate response.

    1. Check this thread after the weekend. He loves to show up when no one is around to call him names.

      1. Tulip, or Tulip and His Band of Many Sockpuppets? I guess we’ll never know….until he lets it slip….again.

    2. Even better. What happens when those sex offenders get hungry? Well they know a place that will give them 3 squares a day and if that is the only way to avoid starving …

      well, you may as well have some fun on the way there right

  4. If only there was some sort of licensing process the homeless could go through to see who really deserved charity and who did not. Regular people can’t be trusted to make that kind of determination!

  5. “But some are homeless because they are sex offenders, substance abusers and bank robbers. That’s why we ask (Good Samaritans) to coordinate with our social service agencies, because they know who needs to be served.”

    Do sex offenders, substance abusers, or that prolific population of homeless bank robbers possess some magical power that prevents them from needing food? Is there some law that prevents these terrible deviants from venturing onto “public property” that they, as members of the public, supposedly own?

    Instead of babbling nonsense, why can’t the good chief admit that Daytona Beach doesn’t want homeless people and other second-class citizens using its parks and will harass them until they go away?

    1. They simply need to make a few more things illegal, then they’ve solved the need to feed the deserving homeless.

  6. Freedom of association means you’re free to associate WHERE the state says, WITH WHOM the state says, WHEN the state says, and FOR THE PURPOSES the state says.

    Why is that so hard to understand, ANARCHOTEATHUGLIHADISTANIAN HOMOPHOBICWOMENHATERS??!

  7. Government: Giving evil cover for millennia.

  8. That’s why we ask (Good Samaritans) to coordinate with our social service agencies, because they know who needs to be served.

    Apparently not how to adequately serve their needs, however.

    1. Social service agencies, those famous repositories of omniscience, competence, and good will.

    2. Basically, the government now wants to TAX charitable donations on both ends.

    3. That’s right. Everyone knows homeless people rightfully belong to the social service agencies. We can’t have these self-righteous carpetbaggers wandering onto the plantations, filling their primitive homeless brains with dangerous ideas and poaching away the social worker’s livelihoods.

  9. So you can’t have people over to the house. or feed them in the park.
    and we’re the ones who want people to go hungry in the street?

  10. I blame John for this.

  11. There is a segment of the police officer population that is held unaccountable by choice. I don’t want to impugn them all. But some are sex offenders, substance abusers and bank robbers. That’s why we ask (Good Samaritans) to coordinate with our social service agencies, so they don’t come in contact with our police officer neanderthals, and so we don’t shoot them and their pets.

    That’s a bit more accurate.

    1. *rises, begins slow, deliberate clapping*

  12. Freedom means asking permission and obeying orders.

    Did they ask permission before feeding the homeless?

    Were they under orders to feed the homeless?

    No?

    Well then. ‘Nuff said.

  13. OT, but something hilarious happened on Derpbook: ‘Being Liberal’, which endeavors to be Facebook’s go-to place for smug liberal moralizing and exercises in ideological masturbation, posted this quote without attribution:

    Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to take away the rights of the minority; the political function of rights is precises to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority in the world is the individual).

    And I think we all know who said that.

    1. I think it was Andrew Ryan or some other amalgamation.

    2. You know who else was quoted frequently….

    3. Did you reply simply:

      — Ayn Rand

      1. I was late to the party by about 12 hours, but it is still up and the comments are hilarious.

        Mostly libertarians posting memes and pointing out that individual rights include the right to keep and bear arms, to manage one’s own health care, and own a business.

        The Facebook liberals have pretty much given up on that one so I’m surprised they haven’t removed it.

    4. Even without knowing the attribution, why would people who constantly crow about the need for unfettered democracy post that? Is it possible to be more confused about your social values?

    5. That has to be trolling..

    6. I’ve been told repeatedly and had it validated in court that the smallest minority is the local government.

    7. That group also uses a picture of FDR as their profile image. Yes, he handed down the crap New Deal, but he also put Japanese people in camps and stole their property.

      FDR is probably the WORST president in US history.

      1. And imposed a new US-friendly constitution on Haiti which he ruled as a cruel and bloody Governor-General (inspiring third rate dictators everywhere) during the US invasion and occupation under Wilson of one of two independent black states in the world.

      2. I tend to agree with your assessment of FDR, but it is not the most popular view of him. I think deep down lots of people want a king.

  14. Why? Some people don’t like what homeless people do in the park, including human acts of excretion and drunkenness.

    Count me in. Public parks are for all the public, not those who get there first and bogart a spot to live in and make it miserable for the rest of us.

    Solution: Feed the homeless on your own or someone else’s private property.

    1. Public parks are for all the public, not those who get there first and bogart a spot to live in and make it miserable for the rest of us.

      The two halves of your sentence contradict each other.

      Now it may be that the entire concept of a public park cannot be reconciled with what you want a public park to be, but I honestly don’t give a shit. It’s not my job to make contradictory concepts work for you.

      1. How? A public space is for all, therefore it needs reasonable rules so that it can be enjoyed by all. Which rules could include one prohibiting you from grabbing a spot and hosting your own soup kitchen.

        The soup kitchen I volunteer at is a block away from a public park where some of the city’s vagrants spend time. But we don’t give out food there–we do it in a church basement.

        1. A public space is for all, therefore it needs reasonable rules so that it can be enjoyed by all.

          “A public space is for all, but not for you because you won’t use it the way we want you to use it.”

          =

          “A public space is for all, but a public space is not for all.”

        2. Don’t people have picnics in parks all the time?

          Why are homeless people not allowed to get together and have a picnic?

        3. Which rules could include one prohibiting you from grabbing a spot and hosting your own soup kitchen.

          Which rules could include one prohibiting you from grabbing the same spot I’m currently napping on to practice bagpipes or tai chi?

          Who gets precedence? After all, I only had the privilege of bogarting a spot to rest.

          If a group of people decide to picnic in the park and share food with each other, would the same restrictions apply to them?

          We can only feed the homeless in sanctioned areas now? Should we simply round them up and pen them in zoos shelters or soup kitchens before we can voluntarily offer them sustenance?

          Should we post signs “Don’t feed the homeless” below or above the “Don’t feed the bears”?

          I’m just wondering where these common sense “reasonable” restrictions on feeding human beings start and the insanity begins.

          A public space is for all

          Except the homeless. They can either eat in the church basement, or they can go fuck themselves, amirite?

        4. I hate to break it to you, but it is impossible for a park to be enjoyed by all. It can only accommodate a certain number of people, homeless or not.

    2. Public property doesn’t exist. Parks and other “public” property are state property, and the state–meaning politicians, bureaucrats, and their enforcers–permits you to use them as the state sees fit.

      Americans should’ve learned this lesson for good and all after the National Parks Service behaved like a bunch of psychos and kicked the public off public property during the latest government shutdown, but that point seems to have been completely lost on a population that’s perpetually bamboozled by language.

      1. I’m with you. The way to end this problem is to privatize all property.

        In the meantime, I hope the Jimenezes just keep feeding the homeless. No jury will convict them.

  15. You cannot feed the homeless in public places, nor can you serve them in your own home.

    And libertarians hate the poor.

    1. And libertarians hate the poor.

      The “poor” mean those with govt-subsidized housing, govt-provided footstamps and welfare. Not those too proud to rely on the govt teet or too mentally deficient to accept “approved” forms of assistance who refused to live in the places their betters have chosen for them.

      Anyway, the homeless only matter on voting day.

  16. Why are the names of the pols who passed this local ordinance never spelled out in the article?

    1. That would make Brian an accessory to murder.

  17. Daytona Beach: “Don’t Feed the Animals.”

    1. Central FL has had a major bear problem recently. Considering how dangerous bears and gators become when provided food by humans, it’s only natural that we lump the homeless into that group before they start becoming unafraid of civilization and start attacking.

      /s

  18. “They were told…”

    And they didn’t *obey*. How *dare* they! They need to be made an example of!

  19. See, Ayn Rand was wrong again. “If you wish to help them, you will be stopped.”

    1. What a cruel and selfish woman. If only she were more generous and altruistic like the cops who roust the public from public property.

  20. Why do all of these towns have to keep trying to catch up to San Francisco in the worst ways possible?

  21. Domicilism is the last refuge of the terminally ignorant.

    Since it is no longer legal to denigrate blacks, or gays – the hopelessly brainfried have turned on the homeless as an easy way to feed their psychopathy. Cannibalism by proxy is the name of the game, and these dimglows are in a feeding frenzy.

    Ignore them, or end them.

  22. That’s why we ask (Good Samaritans) to coordinate with our social service agencies, because they know who needs to be served.

    Literally, one of the most evil statements ever. Only those who are politically approved should be fed. If you try to feed people who are not politically approved, you will get fined and go to jail.

    To Police Chief Mike Chitwood: Fuck you.

  23. The city is basically saying “we don’t want these people in our town”, but they need a legal pretext to kick them out.

    But at what level does it become OK for a group of people living next to each other to say that? I can clearly kick out homeless from my private property. If I share a driveway with my neighbor, we can still kick out the homeless. If I live in a large gated community, we can still kick out the homeless; that decision will be made by vote, and if I don’t like how the majority of my fellow HOA members vote, I need to leave. Yet for regular towns and cities, we somehow apply different rules. Why?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.