Oregon Town Bans Church Soup Kitchens From Serving Meals More Than 2 Days a Week
Rev. Bernie Lindley of Brookings' St. Timothy's Episcopal Church says that the new rules violate his First Amendment rights, and that he won't comply with them.

Zoning restrictions have been known to trip up all sorts of human activity, from home recording studio businesses to goat yoga operations. They're now interfering with the Lord's work, too.
Last week, Brookings, Oregon, passed a new ordinance that limits churches in residential-zoned areas to serve meals only two days a week and requires them to apply for special city permits in order to operate their soup kitchens, reports OPB.
The city says that the new ordinance was crafted in response to concerns raised by neighbors near the local St. Timothy's Episcopal Church about the crime and vagrancy that its homeless services were bringing to the surrounding area.
But Bernie Lindley, the reverend of St. Timothy's, says that the new permitting system is an unconstitutional restriction on his and his parishioners' religious duty to feed the hungry and that any attempt by the city to fine him for serving too many meals will result in a lawsuit.
"What we're doing is what churches do. Churches feed people," he tells Reason. "To tell a church that they have to be limited in how they live into the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a violation of our First Amendment right to freely practice our religion."
For years, St. Timothy's and other churches and charitable outfits in Brookings have been providing free meals to the area's poor through their joint Community Kitchen Project. Each participating organization took one or two days a week to serve food to the needy from their own property.
But the onset of the pandemic saw some of the participating churches stop offering their charitable meal service. In response, St. Timothy's picked up the slack and started offering meals six days a week.
The increased meal service was accompanied by a change in the type of people that the church was serving. Expanded federal food aid during the pandemic saw many of the poor-but-housed people stop showing up as much, while the number of homeless people being served by the church increased.
St. Timothy's was also the only church in town to participate in the city's emergency vehicle camping program, a pandemic-era program that permitted consenting religious institutions to let people sleep in cars in church parking lots.
In the end, the vehicle camping program proved to be more than St. Timothy's and its congregation could handle. Many of the people who wound up sleeping at the church had physical and psychological needs that the church was not equipped to meet. The stress of the pandemic exacerbated some of the site occupants' mental health issues, while also leading to simultaneous restrictions in the availability of mental health services.
"They can hold it together when things are going fine, but when difficulties come, stress comes their way, they can't self-regulate anymore," says Lindley of the people his church was trying to help. Several people ended up having psychotic episodes, he says. Fights broke out. The police had to be called more than once.
None of this sat well with the neighbors.
In April 2021, 30 people signed a petition demanding that the city "reconsider allowing vagrants to continue to live and congregate at St. Timothy's Church." It listed a number of ill effects the people gathering at the church had visited on the neighborhood, including trespassing, theft, littering, fights, and even "child neglect."
Janelle Howard, Brookings' city manager, said that petition resulted in the city council instructing city staff to come up with ways to limit the neighborhood impacts of the homeless population at St. Timothy's.
She says that process resulted in the discovery that all the city's soup kitchen operations were technically illegal.
The Oregon Health Authority, the state's top food safety regulator, regulates so-called "benevolent" kitchens the same as normal, commercial restaurants. Howard says that the churches in Brookings were therefore engaged in a commercial activity that's not allowed in the city's residential neighborhoods. And all of the city's churches happen to be in residential zoned neighborhoods.
In response, the city held a number of workshops and public meetings—which Howard says included many of the churches in town—to try and come up with a program that would permit residentially zoned houses of worship to continue offering charitable meal service while lessening the impacts on nearby homeowners.
Lindley says he participated in the early rounds of these talks, but then dropped out once it became clear the city intended to put limits on the number of days his church could serve meals, a condition he found intolerable.
In the end, the ordinance the city council passed requires churches to obtain a conditional use permit in order to offer food service up to two times a week and up to three hours a day. The program also comes with requirements that places serving meals have a certain number of parking spaces. (Howard says that shouldn't be an issue for any churches, given that the pre-existing parking requirements for religious institutions are higher than they are for the new soup kitchen permits.)
On paper, this was actually a liberalization of Brookings' laws on technically illegal soup kitchens. In practice, it means that these once-unregulated kitchens will now have to get explicit permission from the city to continue serving meals.
For most of the churches in town, the new limits aren't controversial given that they were only serving one or two meals a week before the pandemic.
But Lindley sees the city's new two-day limit as a major imposition. For starters, St. Timothy's is currently offering meals four days a week, and the church has no plans to scale that back at the moment. Lindley also expressed concern that if another church had to stop its meal service—because it had a COVID outbreak, say—the city's new limits wouldn't allow other churches to quickly fill that gap.
He also contends that the new ordinance is addressing a problem that's already been solved.
St. Timothy's stopped allowing vehicle camping on its property in June, mitigating many of the issues the neighbors were complaining about. The new two-day limit on meal service won't lessen any impacts on the surrounding neighborhood given several of the other churches that run soup kitchens are located only a couple blocks away, Lindley adds.
Howard, the city manager, says that Brookings is not trying to crack down on soup kitchens but rather to ensure they operate in appropriate areas, noting that churches could offer free meals on commercially zoned properties without any restrictions.
She declined to say how the city might go about enforcing the new limits on St. Timothy's, citing Lindley's promise to sue the city over the new permitting scheme.
Lindley tells Reason that he's happy to comply with state food safety regulations, but the limitations the city's zoning regulations are putting on St. Timothy's charitable work is unacceptable.
"It's pretty explicit what Jesus calls us to do. And so, we live into that and the city says 'you're doing too much. We can't have all these Samaritans around,'" he says. "To say well you're a church in a residential area so you have to do this, this, and this…We're a church first."
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Open 3 more soup kitchens , each next to the other.
Or, identify as a different religion every other day.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening… i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it.... READ MORE
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.VJu Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.......... Pays 24
Sarah getting Paid upto $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.GYh Everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……
So I started.............. E-CASH
Is it a Mormon church?
Not with a name like "St. Timothy's". The LDS don't do saints like that. Actually, they don't really name their churches like that, either. If it were an LDS facility, it'd probably be "The [Whatever] Street Chapel".
The [Whatever] Meetinghouse. The chapel is a specific room inside the building.
It's been quite a few decades, I'm not surprised that I misremembered.
Actually, it's possible we didn't specify anything beyond the location. Everyone knew what was meant when we talked about going to "Whatever Street". Or maybe we said "Church"?
Hunh. I really can't remember. Apparently I'm getting old. 😀
St. Timothy's Episcopal Church is right in the headline: Anglicans, USA version. The "P" in WASP.
Why can't the town just bus it's hobos to Portland? It's right down the street.
Opposite end of the state, north to south. Which means it might be far enough that the hobos wouldn't just make their way back.
Until the community you dumped them on decides to bus them back.
Portland wont ever do that. The NGO's making millions off the "problem" they create will not stand for it. Nope, off to Portland would be a great solution.. except that the 'bos in Brookings proly would not like the way things go down in Portland. Soug=th coast is a VERY different type of area. I could live in Brookings/bold Beach, but never Portland. it wasinsane enough when Iwas there twenty years ago, and has gotten eponentially worse since.
Brookings is 6500 people on the Southern Oregon coast. The hobos are catching the train from SF to get to Oregon where drug use has been decriminalized, getting a free meal and camping on the beach.
Give it a year and the hobos will outnumber the locals.
There’s no train that goes to Brookings. It’s close to Crescent City, California.
The comments will separate the real libertarians from the fake ones. Let's see the fakes out themselves!
need better hobbies.
Small towns are funny like that. I suspect the residents know what's going on in Portland and are desperate to nip that shit in the bud before it becomes a problem.
This is what we call a problem of "competing virtues".
The right of the church to feed the homeless, and the right of the people to not watch their town descend into a shithole.
Touch choices.
"And the right of the people to not watch their town descend into a shithole."
Does everyone agree this is a right, though?
Well, not everyone agrees that unlimited feeding of the homeless is right, hence the argument.
And your 'not to watch their town descend into a shithole' analogy isn't entirely apt, or is being selectively misinterpretted.
Your "right" to feed the homeless ends at their fist touching my nose.
You're using "right" as an adjective, whereas I was using it as a noun. In your original comment, you used it as a noun as well, so I responded in the same way.
The two aren't the same thing.
Easy choice.
Pandemic is over. Vaccines are available. There is no reason for another church to shut down because of a COVID outbreak.
There is no reason for a residential neighborhood to continue allowing a temporary encampment of homeless people in the church parking lot.
There is no reason for the city or state to restrict access to mental health services.
MOVE ON.
Pandemic is over. Vaccines are available. There is no reason for another church to shut down because of a COVID outbreak.
Covid deaths, latest data,
Nov 2, 2021 (vaccines available, millions vaccinated)
Deaths: 1509
7 day average: 1277
Nov 2, 2020 (no vaccine available, zero vaccinated)
Deaths: 540
7 day average: 826
Yeesh. Do you people know how to understand numbers? Or is this just yet more lying and flimflam for political purposes?
It is not the vax who are dying in those numbers. 80-90+% of the people dying are unvax. People didn't get vax in order to save the unvax.
is that why the vaxxed are shitting themselves over the unvaxxed? It's fairly clear that the jabs neither prevent a person from being infected or from transmitting infection to someone else. Which is why the CDC changes its definition of 'vaccine.'
I'm not your strawman. I haven't worn a mask for months anywhere. I oppose mandates - except that if ICU's are full, the unvax should not be admitted to be treated for covid.
I don't give a shit if the unvax die or get sick or don't get either. It's their decision. But this perpetual lying by your ilk - about everything - says a lot about you - on every other possible issue.
No one changed the definition of vaccine but I'm sure that whatever moron you got that from also has a ton of other diarrhea you've been drinking.
Once again, all you have to do is post CDC statistics, and the "right" people jump out of the woodwork. I posted the numbers with no commentary (beyond the known facts on the ground of vaccine availability) and people get mad.
If the "pandemic is over", then it was "over" in mid 2020.
Also, you're wrong:
The vaccines are nowhere NEAR as effective as you're being told.
I'm not your strawman. I haven't worn a mask for months anywhere. I oppose mandates - except that if ICU's are full, the unvax should not be admitted to be treated for covid.
You must live in one of those red states. I am vaccinated. I live in one of the most vaccinated counties in the US and I am both masked in public, masked at work, and forced to show a passport to navigate public life.
Two weeks to flatten the curve.
Get vaccinated and you can return to normal.
Lies. All... lies.
You must live in one of those red states.
I live in Denver. Bluest city (last R mayor - 1963) in a state that's become blue. One of the higher vax counties in the state (85% of over-18s). Colorado has 5th highest covid rate in the country now (81% of currently hospitalized for covid are unvax - and the ones who are vax in hospital for covid are really old). Colorado is moving step by step towards crisis standards of care and in a week or so will be there. 120 ICU beds available in the state - the vast majority of which are in the Denver trauma region. The trauma regions outside Denver mostly have 0-10 ICU beds available. So the unvax areas are now going to be transferring their covid patients to Denver/mountains (the two highest vax regions) until they get full. And then the state will hit crisis standards of care.
There are more people wearing masks in Denver grocery stores now than in the summer - maybe 20-30% v 10% or less. Different school districts in the Denver area have different school mask/etc rules. But Denver is not where this outbreak is happening and everyone knows it. idk what the state will do when crisis standards of care hit - but I doubt it will be 'fuck off you unvax assholes if you get covid'.
The CDC changed the definition of vaccine and vaccinated.
https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine
Cool. Glad you've got the internal emails that took place over changing that word. Which does not equal changing a definition.
Old Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
New Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
Unfortunately you don't know how to actually read the result.
<a href="immunity">Definition of immunity from a medical dictionary written before covid.
immunity [ĭ-mu´nĭ-te]
the condition of being immune; the protection against infectious disease conferred either by the immune response generated by immunization or previous infection or by other nonimmunologic factors. It encompasses the capacity to distinguish foreign material from self, and to neutralize, eliminate, or metabolize that which is foreign (nonself) by the physiologic mechanisms of the immune response.....
Now perhaps 'immunity' means something a bit different in a legal dictionary - or in a Superman comic book. But I'm pretty sure the CDC uses a medical dictionary. At any rate, you people really need to stop playing in your dumbass conspiracy sandbox.
That was some spectacular mental gymnastics. Typical: facts produced, so you double down on your lies, move the goalposts, infer moral or intellectual inferiority of opponent (shout conspiracy theorist), etc.
It'd be refreshing to see a leftist say "Hey, I made a mistake. I wonder if there's any othe info I need to learn?" Yeah, Won't hold my breath.
News flash.. the lying Powers that Think they Be have changed the definition of the word vacinated". It used to mean w=someone who has gotten the needle in the arm. NOW it means someone who got the needle at least two weeks ago.
WHY is this signficnt?Eas peasy. Some 85% of adverse reactions to the shot occur within the fisrt TEN DAYS from getting the poke in the arm. Ain't ti real convenient now, 85% of tose adverse reactions(which include "breaktrhoguh infection") wil happen amongst the NEW definition of "unvaccinted" because it will most likely occur within the period between gETTING the hole in the arm, and quailfying under the new "definition of the word "vaccinated".
WHY do they have to be so diabolically dishonest?
So no, most of the new cases are happening amongst those who have gotten the squirt in the arm. never mind the CDC'snew "definition".
For further clairifcation, go and learn about Israel's current stats. Some 97% or Israelies are injected.Yet their deatha nd seroius adverse reactin rates are amongst the highest in the world. WHY/ I'll leave you to put on your smart ap and pencil it out.
Now go and loook at Flroda's numbers.. lowest percentage of injected, lowest deah tates lowest case rates/ No maske. no clockdowns,no ocial dic=stancing.. the "vid is all but eradicated from that state. They also are openl hosting large public cgatheinrs, conferences, etc. "Super spreader" events as they are labelled in other states. WHERE are the dire tragic results of this egregious abandonment of the saaaaafteeprotocls?
I'd argue that the church as an organization has a right to feed the homeless.
I'd also argue that the organization doesn't have an unlimited right to feed homeless people in any particular location: when the exercise of your (religious) rights start to infringe upon my (property) rights, the conflicting rights must be adjudicated in some manner.
Even the Bible doesn't try to argue that Christians must feed the hungry /at the church building/.
It's in Oregon...it already is a shit hole.
It listed a number of ill effects the people gathering at the church had visited on the neighborhood, including trespassing, theft, littering, fights, and even "child neglect."
Never let it be said that religion and morality are a synonym.
"To say well you're a church in a residential area so you have to do this, this, and this…We're a church first."
even gots my 501c3 and c4 and Incorporated ourselfs before the altar of Govt to protect our asses... assets
I think the church, maybe, should be liable for any disruptions their activities cause in the surrounding neighborhood--if somebody wants to sue them.
If I created a sports bar that specialized in selling pitchers of beer while people watch three hour long football games, baseball games, and hockey games, and I didn't bother to provide a restroom for my customers, my neighbors should probably sue me if the patrons of my business urinate in front of their stores.
Is the church providing restroom facilities to homeless people who show up the night before the soup kitchen opens? How does this impact the church's neighbors and their property? Are the neighbors complaining or is this just about the code enforcement officer justifying his or her job?
Is the church allowed to blast music so loud, in the middle of the night, so that their neighbors can't sleep--so long as the music is religious in nature?:
It certainly tempers your "libertarian moment" when you personally watched a town help the homeless (read: encouraged) to a point where every street, sidewalk and greenspace is littered with tents, garbage, human waste, rats and used mRNA vaccine needles.
I'm very reluctant to limit the church's right to feed the homeless. And maybe there's another solution. Sure, feed the homeless all you want, but the instant the feeding stops the cops will sweep and clear the area.
I'm not averse to free bus tickets to Portland.
That was always a tempting thought for me too...until I realized that some homeless may be practicing prostitution and the bus ticket provider might be busted under the Mann Act.
Pop-Up Video Factoid: The Mann Act was one of the reasons Sheriff Buford T. Justice was chasing The Bandit in Smokey & The Bandit. (8:11-9:39.)
https://youtu.be/uN3c64j2DPE
Is the church providing restroom facilities to homeless people who show up the night before the soup kitchen opens?
I was on board until this line and, given the rest, probably would've left it out. Very 'public accomodations' and very anti-1A. I could see a pragmatic case where they should accomodate the used soup that they served, but off-hours, especially prior to opening, is insisting they accomodate somebody else's used soup.
I'm not sure where the line is, but there are gray areas in there somewhere.
Adam Smith wrote about a guy who had a cinder from his neighbor's chimney land on his newly laundered shirt. Surely, he isn't the one who made his shirt dirty, and surely people have a right to keep their stoves lit in the winter to warm their homes. Someone's responsible for the cleaning bill, but who?
I'm not sure zoning ordinances are the appropriate way to answer that question. If no one is bothered enough by the church's behavior to sue, what the church is doing probably doesn't need to be zoned, but if the church is interfering with their neighbors' ability to enjoy their own property, their neighbors should probably sue.
First Amendment free speech doesn't trump property rights. You're free to put any signs up you like on your own property--not someone else's. I don't see why First Amendment religious rights would be any different. Are the homeless a nuisance on the neighbor's property? I suspect the answer is yes, or the city wouldn't be taking on a church.
"First Amendment free speech doesn't trump property rights. "
Yes, this. Nor the separation of Church and State. It doesn't mean the church can do whatever the hell it wants, whenever the hell it wants, however the hell it wants.
Again, it seems the only Amendment anyone cares about anymore is the First while individual/private property rights take a back seat.
I think the church, maybe, should be liable for any disruptions their activities cause in the surrounding neighborhood--if somebody wants to sue them.
the church have no responsibiity to police visitors, and that's what the folks coming round for a meal are. the church need to make it clear that this and tht behaviouris not acceepotable, and anyone participating in that behaviour may be subject to local LE action.
It IS the duty of local LE (city cops, sheriffs) to eforce lawsagasint things like public camping, littering, public defecation, drug use. loud and raucus noise, etc.
Cooperatioin between the church folks and local LE is needed here. The locals nearby seem to have some secific and valid beefs about behaviour that is not lawful. Let LE deal with that. The church members and staff areNOT LE. They canot function as such.
That minister IS correct.. city have NO authroity to restrict their servic eactivities. They are NOT running a commercail operation, and thus cannot be regulated as if they were.
Meetings tih leadershio of the various churches, together with the town gummit an would perhaps be productive.. other "concerned individuals" have simly decided THEY want to run the church. perhaps the shuodld BUY the building and lot, and the church could turn that money into a new venue just outside city limits........ maybe a couple acres where homeless could camp longer term. Let them help build some suitable infrastructure..... sortof a cooperative effort. City would be out of the picture.
This is one of those real world issues. That doesn't fit nicely into my preexisting ideals.
I believe that people should be able to do with their property as they please. I believe commercial vs residential zoning is bogus, and if a restaurant wants to open in the middle of a neighborhood, they should be allowed to do so. I believe liquor stores should be able to open wherever they please.
But this particular case puts those beliefs to the test, because unlike restaurants and liquor stores which are merely eye sores and occasionally loud, it appears that feeding the homeless results in real world increase of property damage, theft, and assault.
In not sure how to rectify the beliefs that we shouldn't hold businesses responsible for the actions of their patrons, with the reality that that will result in innocent third parties getting their rights violated when they otherwise wouldn't have.
I believe that people should be able to do with their property as they please. I believe commercial vs residential zoning is bogus, and if a restaurant wants to open in the middle of a neighborhood, they should be allowed to do so. I believe liquor stores should be able to open wherever they please.
See that's easier to make a call on. Machine shop is annoying, but not a danger to life, limb, or property. The only reason anyone should get a say about if it goes there, is because it is public not private property.
As someone who does a lot of metalwork, I'd be concerned about the flammability of that building. And I'm being serious, not making some sort of sly "the neighbors should burn it down" suggestion. I've definitely managed to catch things on fire with grinding sparks, and a wood and tarp building seems ripe for that.
I'm sort of torn on the noise issue. I've done metalwork in residential areas, but I limited myself to daylight hours as well. It seems like a real dick move to keep people up all night with that sort of thing.
The flammability of the building is what should be giving surrounding residents hope.
let those whom the city has hired to deal with such lawbreaking DO so. WHY are they being paid to do so and then fail? HLD them accountable. Yes the police and sheriffs. THEY enforcethe lws, not the bailiwick of the church.
I have never cited vox for anything. But this article did make me remember an article from a few months ago. Esp since the same dynamic occurred in a Denver ballot measure (2F) from yesterday's election.
How homeownership can bring out the worst in people
You should have continued the streak, as that article was terrible. "You should sacrifice your family on the altar of things I think make up the common good" was the main theme of it. Very Vox, not particularly libertarian.
I didn't say it was libertarian. It was a very good explanation for why homeowners drive the worst aspects of zoning.
Oh - and zoning is not remotely libertarian. It spread like Kudzu from a Supreme Court case - Village of Euclid v Amber Realty - when a deemed government interest in 'maintaining the character of a neighborhood' was deemed more important than property rights of a landowner.
"Oregon Town Bans Church Soup Kitchens From Serving Meals More Than 2 Days a Week"
The first amendment, in particular, "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." trumps your town ordinance. Gee. Sorry about that.
Brookings is a town of 6500 on the Southern Oregon Coast. It has mild weather year round. I suspect at least part of it is a reaction to homeless migrants moving northward to take advantage of a state that has decriminalized all drug use. A free meal every day, camp on the beach, spend all your money on drugs sounds pretty good to certain people.
A bunch of small town folks at the mercy of the Blue Crew in North Francisco (PDX) trying to knock one of the legs of that triangle of despair.
what might the foreseeable consequences of daily meal service be. If only we could review some evidence of what happens when the homeless have an incentive to congregate in places. Some years back, they might show up for a meal and then go about their business, pretty much out of sight. That's a lofty expectation today.
Funny how the left wants us to share everything and give to everyone, yet they are shutting down a soup kitchen that is doing just that! I guess y'all need to wake up more!
According to my wife, many of these folks invading Brookings over the past few years are ex-Californians. So, yeah, the worst of the worst.
They may not all be of the left!
Well, we do have an obesity problem among the poor in this country...
" . . . about the crime and vagrancy that its homeless services were bringing to the surrounding area. . . "
So call the (defunded) cops to enforce the criminal law against individuals who are breaking the laws.
"The services do not bring crime and vagrancy, people do."
Perhaps all those concerned homeowners should get together and offer more and better services to the homeless at a different location, possibly including transportation?
This is such a great example of government actually stopping people from helping other people.
Normally what you hear from the left and the media is that people aren't doing enough to help others, or they go after the rich while ignoring all that they do.
Well, folks, this is a great example of government getting in the way. Normally they are more stealth about it and silently crowd out private people or groups helping others through regulation or some new, unneeded social program. At least this is in people's faces and hopefully the people in Brookings will fight back until they get government out of their way of helping the hungry.
the people in Brookings will fight back until they get government out of their way of helping the hungry
Again, this is not a suburb of Portland. It is an isolated town of 6,500, 329 miles away on the other side of the Coast Range.
Providing food to people so they can spend all of their disposal income on drugs is not helping them. It is just as likely that the local government is trying to solve an interstate problem. Small logging towns are not known for having a lot of homeless people. Meanwhile, Brookings is 320 miles from the SF metro area in a different state that has decriminalized drug use.
I would ask Britschgi if he investigated the size and origin of the vagrant community.
I well remember a Brookings of some years back. Hithchiking was comon safe and efficient in tose days, (I hitched when I needed to, picked up when I had a car with room) and never once had a problem of an sort. Except fot the drunk with the whiskey bottle under the front seat of his pickup who insisted I get the bottle and refill his empty cup as he was driving. I did then next town let him know "this is where we are headed thanks for the lift".
I also remember that NO ONE ever tried to hitchhike THROUGH Brookings. One would find out whether that ride was goig THROUGH Broookngs or TO Brookings. If through, and they were not going further up Highway 1, yoi always got out OUTSIDE of the city limits, welll eough beyond the city coppers could not see you from inside city limits. If you were going to get dripped off bEFORE the town, you NEVER tried walking through. The coppers would hrrass you often arrestinghyou and taking you in, booking hyou for the night. In the morning the cop would plop you in the dreaded back seat of his hotrod Ford cruiser and kick you out half a a mile past Brookings. NO ONE ever needed a bathroom or food in Brookings.
Seems their "tude hasnt changed much in forty years. Sniff sniff.
You just described the plot of First Blood.
Maybe if they fed the homeless "things that would make a billy goat puke," that would scare off the worst vagrants and leave only Rambo... so he could keep out the Antifa!
https://youtu.be/sdEONLwlkjo
Having graduated from Brookings-Harbor High School some 50 years ago or so I recall the police (includ. State Police) being particularly helpful to those traveling through town to the point of giving rides south to the state line. They wouldn't be in favor of jailing anyone based on cost and transients made poor pickings for fines while speeding tickets paid for a lot of city government. The population was a around half of what is now and the hardest thing I had to deal with growing up was discouraging my cat from following me to school.
Until the Pilot went to paid Internet subscriptions you could read the crime reports as they depressingly went up over the last decade or so. It's not police officers who set policy. The rate that trickles down from State and Federal governments is likely dependent on the size and remoteness. Has Brookings grown big enough and close enough with the Internet or is it just migration?
I'm surprised that nobody's commenting on the fact that it's a bunch of Episcopalians claiming some sort of freedom of religion right. What's next? Will vegetarians or furries be claiming they're a religion as well? Episcopalianism isn't a religion, it's a fashion choice.
Catholic light.
I've heard them called Whiskey-palians by Southern Baptist detractors.
The fact that every church in town is zoned into a "residential" zone is a clear failure of the zoning process... or maybe it was deliberate.
Presumably, Oregon has preempted direct regulation of the homeless problem. That's why instead of instituting a simple, effective ordinance (e.g. dump them back in SF), this town is trying to go after indirect contributing factors.
Maybe we should just tell the ACLU to fuck off and go back to vagrancy laws. Start with "no sleeping on or adjacent to public streets" and work our way up to the language struck down in Papchristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972, striking down vagrancy law as void for vagueness). The Supreme Court is no longer packed with Democrats, so we might even get it overruled.
Without more detail on the behavior of the folks who are getting soup, the fact that only 30 people signed the petition seems like the council acted on a petty grievance.
I'm surprised that nobody's commenting on the fact that it's a bunch of Episcopalians claiming some sort of freedom of religion right. https://360fugazi.com.ng/
There’s been a debate since the 19th century over “outdoor relief” (perceived as enabling) vs “indoor relief” (rescue missions). I wouldn’t mind a fenced off facility, like Orange County’s Village of Hope, near me at all. Though most Episcopals are not classical Christians (their Christian counterparts usually call themselves Anglicans these days) I also do have a desire to defend their “religious liberty” in some way, because a precedent could be used against Christians as well. Their religious liberty is ours too.
Hey check this out helpful blog,home delivery vegetables near me
Hey check this out helpful blog,marvellousgreensandbeans
Hey check this out helpful blog,fruit & veg boxes delivery in south london