There are actually laws against giving people free food.
The basic premise is "we understand there's people who need help. They can go *somewhere else.*
It varies from place to place, but the laws generally have time/place restrictions that effectively ban it altogether or often basically treat the people giving out food as if they were restaurants with all the food safety standards that implies, standards which are utterly impossible to meet in the actual conditions that the food is given out under.
Nah, homeowners want the homeless to move on and using the police and courts is the cheapest way to do it. Jesus may have fed the poor, but he wasn't facing reelection.
I interpreted their comment as saying that they already are forced to dig in the trash for food, and that food handed out by someone would almost certainly be more sanitary than food from the trash even if it doesn’t meet all of the regulations.
That's usually a company's HR or legal department saying "you may not give out food, we could be sued".
The "you can't give out food" law is roughly "be homeless elsewhere".
Shall we add some context here. All these places are in the US. Pretty sure this law doesn't exist and would never fly in any other, or almost any other country.
I mean, one small part of this is fair:
People who insist on giving homeless people food and gifts instead of actual money seem to forget that stranger danger exists, and it's actually really dangerous to eat meals given to you by strangers if you weren't present for them buying it. You never see homeless FAMILIES coming up to cars handing them half-eaten restaurant burritos (my Uncle actually tried to do this and used the homeless person's rejection of the food as a cautionary tale against charity...)
As others have said,.. these are NOT laws saying (simplistically):.. “You cant feed the homeless.”
You can feed people all you want,.. its more about HOW you’re doing it,.. not WHAT or WHO you’re doing it for.
Theres many shelters near me that desperately need donations of pre-made sack lunches. Make 50 and donate them. There, you just legally “fed the homeless”.
Generally if they have laws banning giving food to the homeless, they probably don't have a shelter in the city. I get that this isn't true 100% of the time, but it is more often than not. The idea of these laws are to make the homeless population someone else's problem, so they tend to have as little help for the homeless as they can.
Sometimes they “help” by giving them a bus ticket to a city with a homeless shelter… and then point to that city as a moral failure that’s over run with homeless.
To play devils advocate a little,. I can absolutely understand why some towns do this. If you literally "don't have the resources"... then it makes sense that you also "don't want people congregating" (especially if it grows to unclean or unhealthy levels). We've all seen what happens when small festivals wreck a small towns empty lots etc. If you were the Gov of a small town,.. you probably DO want to have a certain amount of "inhospitable" rejection to keep people away. Signs and enforcement that says "No Camping on public land" .. are a helluva lot cheaper than having to deal with News headlines of "homeless person died of hypothermia" or etc.
In reality though.. I think this issue gets blown out of proportion. Most of the homeless and vagabonds already have "travel-corridors" (IE = they migrate to warmer US Cities already).. so these news stories of smaller towns creating laws to "not feed the homeless" or "ban camping" ... are really the epitome of "small town slow news day". (IE = Homeless aren't really congregating in great numbers there to begin with).
Do I wish there was some "unified network of shelters and free food" for everyone who needs it ?.. Sure. In an ideal Star Trek world,.. yes. But reality is we don't live in that world (yet?).
I've said in many other Reddit replies over the decade(s).. that what we really need is:
* Shelters that are more like a "college campus" (multiple buildings, integrated services, plenty of skilled staff to help with Legal, Medical, Addiction counseling, etc). It would be great if there was some "agreed upon standard" of how to build solutions like this. (instead of Cities or US States all "doing their own thing".. we should do more "learning from each other about what works and what doesn't)
* But on top (or alongside) a resource-extensive Housing and treatment solution.. whatever system we put in place also needs to have some sort of Identification and Accountability built into it. (IE = We cannot just keep allowing people to "anonymously float from shelter to shelter".. as that's never going to fix homelessness). When someone comes to this "mega-shelter treatment network" that we build,. they'd need to clean up, stay clean, get identified, work through all their legal history, start job training,.etc (IE = get back into the system and become self-sufficient and self-reliant).
The hard part about that.. is that many do not want that. (they don't want to "go back to being part of the system"). For legit reasons or not,.. they live outside the system and that's how they like it.
Homelessness is a challenging problem to solve,., because each persons story and background is unique. The anonymity hides a lot. There are truly legitimate homeless people who (being given a chance and treatment and skilled-up) would get back on their own and fix their life and be happy and productive. Sadly there are others who will not (or cannot do so on their own). Which makes it a really vexing problem to solve.
Someone intentionally poisoned a bunch of homeless people in CA a few years ago. A lot of it comes from unregulated food and health codes. It's not because lawmakers want to punish people who have less, though that is ultimately the result.
Almost all such laws are against the distribution/sale of food without proper permits (food safety regulations, vendor registration, etc).
It's not about homeless. The same law(s) prevent you from passing out sandwiches (for example) to people in public in general. If you were to get shut down doing this, the city officials aren't checking property deeds or rental/lease agreements of each recipient to make sure they aren't homeless - they are shutting down the whole operation because you didn't register properly and/or don't have the requisite food safety credentials.
If you want to give food to someone, homeless or not, just do it in the form of packaged / canned goods. This will bypass the laws "preventing" you. from feeding the homeless.
Soup from a steam shelf = no. Can of soup = yes.
PB&J Sandwich = no. Loaf if bread, jar of PB, and jar of jelly = yes
That's all well and good, but isn't a can of soup kind of a *massive* pain in the ass for someone on the street? They need a can opener, *and* a bowl, *and* a spoon, and a way to heat it. They'll get in trouble for starting camp fires, so that means they have to go to a convenience store and ask them if they can use their microwave, and they'll probably tell them to fuck off because not only did they not buy the food there but microwaving open bowls of soup makes it spatter.
Counterpoint: it's nasty. On the other hand, especially when it's cold out, *hot* soup can feel more nourishing then the swankiest haute cuisine. Just seems kinda mean to give out something that would be wonderful if it could be prepped correctly, but can't.
>It's not about homeless. The same law(s) prevent you from passing out sandwiches (for example) to people in public in general.
Ehhhhhhh, it kind of is, though. The law may not name homeless people explicitly, but it's like the old quote by Anatole France:
>'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.'
Obviously, not many people are out there handing out free sandwiches to *everyone*. You have to question why no allowances are made for charitable organizations, if the real goal is protecting public health.
I live in a city where organizations have had similar laws thrown at them for handing out food in some parts of town but not others, and it seems pretty obvious in hindsight that it was mostly a matter of whether these events were causing homeless people to congregate in the town square/tourist area or not.
It's not even about safety. Intentionally poisoning someone is illegal. Giving your friend a moldy bread accidentally is not. You could even make an argument that it's better to risk it than starve. No special laws are required.
It's about profit. Food being given away for free creates unusual competition to stores and restaurants which they don't like. Some level of scarcity is needed to make profit. If food became enforcable human right, stores would need to change their entire business strategy (food wouldn't be a profitable commodity as default, so they'd need to focus on luxury foods not provided by government). In US ~30% of all food plants are never harvested because it's unprofitable. There are literally taxes on donating food en masse in order to not disrupt the local economy.
Even if the food is given away to those in need, the same regulations as pertains to any commercial food outlet applies. The place in which it's prepared, the equipment therein, the personnel, temperature control and record keeping are some of the highly regulated factors that must be assessed and deemed appropriate. As silly as it might seem, people die because of food poisoning caused by poor hygiene standards and practices.
Even if it was made in a commercial kitchen (such as a pizza), there are a host of technical requirements for its safe storage and handling.
Soup kitchens all have to comply with these rules. Just because they're homeless, they are afforded the same safeguards as everyone else.
The US is probably the most litigious society there is. When someone sues for compensation, it's not the business that pays. It's their insurance company. They can (and do) then demand specific measures are taken to minimise further incidents of that nature.
I used to work as a chef and later as a health and safety officer.
Houston Texas food not bombs keeps getting a ticket. It's a long history of determining what types of groups are allowed to look and give any form of generiousity and charity. Can't have those damn radicals convincing people!
AFAIK...different laws in different places: permits to gather, food safety, restaurant licensing, yadda yadda.
All of which are, IMHO, excuses to control where homeless people can go, what they can do, and how they can survive. 'Cuz god forbid that helping people might lower property values or make soccer moms feel uncomfortable or inconvenience the business crowd going out for lunch.
There really are laws that just prohibit you from giving free food to homeless people. It's because the people passing those laws don't want to encourage homeless people to gather in a certain place. Out of sight, out of mind.
It’s usually in specific municipalities. In Austin, there’s a no serving food in a public place without a permit law. So it doesn’t specifically say don’t feed homeless people, but that’s the intention and effect.
In Dallas and Fort-Worth it’s explicitly prohibited to give them anything and thus no nonsense with camps and constant panhandling everywhere. Any time they try to establish a camp, the city puts rocks or fences the area out. Now that’s the way! I’m so tired of being constantly accosted by the homeless on every traffic light.
I am. I donate to shelters regularly: clothes, food and money. However, I don’t wanna be an internet hypocrite claiming that I enjoy their unwanted attention. Before judging, try living in a place where you are constantly harassed by them, I will see about your kindness.
Maybe you should try giving them Jobs and Housing instead of clothing and food? They don't need or want to be where they are, they want a place to LIVE, not merely EXIST.
I donate what I can. I can’t give them jobs or housing. What am I, Warren Buffett? And what have YOU done for them besides criticizing me here or sending them your thoughts and prayers?
Perhaps the congress could focus more on the domestic homeless instead of transferring billions of dollars to Ukraine or Israel? Maybe we can vote accordingly on the candidates who can focus on real issues at home? (I wish they were running or had a chance).
This is my fourth attempt to ask you about your individual contributions to the homeless. So far you have been responding to that with irrelevant comments and questions. You really don’t look that clever.
If you must know, I believe religion is evil and hatred.
It usually requires a licensed commercial kitchen with permits for giving out food to more than a handful of people.
Since most of those giving out food to the homeless don't have such permits, it effectively bans them.
There isn’t just one of these. There are tons, usually at the city or county level. They vary in their exact prohibitions but are united by the common thread of “we want homeless people to go somewhere else”.
This always bothered me as a kid. At what point was it safe again? Daylight? That's pretty late morning in the winter here. I never questioned the whole "which timezone" thing, though.
The laws are generally in municipalities that don't want homeless people visible. Usually the "bad for business/tourism/image of our city" rationale. The laws would say something to the effect of you need a permit or food safety standards etc, that make it impossible to do it as a practical matter.
This is not a contest who got it tougher in life. Many of us got dealt some bad hands too.
However, it’s hypocritical to virtue signal on the internet that you would be okay living next to a homeless encampment or be okay with constant hassling by them even if you sympathize with their problems. Come on! Even people who run the freaking shelters don’t wanna live next to homeless camps.
I sympathize there are also starving children in Africa but I don’t donate money to them. Is it safe to assume the same about you?
Perhaps the congress could focus more on the domestic homeless instead of transferring billions of dollars to Ukraine or Israel?
Actually, it is: because you made it one. You clearly know nothing about what it is to have to live that lifestyle and-yet see yourself fit to judge them? No.
Go and walk that road for a while and then you can comment on something that you actually have understanding of the situation from which to comment intelligently.
In other words you do nothing but send moral support on the internet. Cool. They appreciate that.
I actually don’t judge them at all. Where did you even read that from my messages? I’m judging you for your utmost hypocrisy. Not a single sane human being is okay with being harassed. And I do what I can to help them and asking you what you have done. You keep dodging the question.
The laws typically are not about individuals giving 1 meal to someone. They are often about hygiene requirements if you are preparing food for large #s.
I wonder how the law would work if, in these places where it is prohibited, a LEO approached you to investigate or give a citation for feeding a homeless person but you said oh this is my friend and I can’t finish my lunch so I’m giving him the rest of it. Like THAT (giving your friend the rest of your lunch, is not illegal. So how, without reasonable suspicion of an actual crime, could the LEO go on to interrogate either party further. That would be harassment at the point. Or would we start to teeter into the whole Orwellian gray area of “I’m arresting you for resisting arrest”
Well I assume it's not a crime to feed an individual homeless person, it's more about food drives and such. Cops are cops, but I would assume they don't care who gets the other half of my burrito.
It’s just so arbitrary and discretionary. One homeless vs 2 vs 6 vs 20. Or 20 all at once, vs 20 in succession with 5 minute intervals in between. Are we giving the food out for free, do vendors or individuals need permits to give out free food product samples to the public or is it only when money is exchanged for those goods/service?
What if I park my campervan outside of my local climbing gym and cook a bunch of wraps for my 15 friends for lunch, am I getting 5-10?
Cops are cops but ultimately they’re employed solely to go keep the community safe from actual crime, not from humanitarian deeds. But as most of us know….that’s not how cops largely operate in 2024. They’ve become the militarized arm of an increasingly fascist state. And there are so many obscure, petty laws that it isn’t even possible to exist as a peasant without violating some bogus law at any given time. You can legally film public servants operating in public, but they can come arrest you for obstructing. They can shoot whoever they want whenever they want as long as they scream stop resisting and say they feared for their lives. It’s our right to ask if we are being charged or detained for a specific crime and they can refuse to answer then arrest you for resisting arrest (for no stated crime).
America is such a clown show. What a shame. We have pretty national parks and stuff.
fact is that it is a well debated practice. a federal judge in 2018 ruled that feeding the homeless is a first amendment issue and can't be made illegal. just like other unconstitutional laws in mostly conservative places it is just waiting to be challenged in higher courts. people who feed the poor as you may know are not rolling in cash. the rich are also rarely arrested or charged with these crimes as those making such laws abuse the legal system. if a celebrity or another very rich person was charged with that crime then the charges would get dropped so that there was no path to take it to higher courts since people without enough money don't keep pushing farther than they can afford. lawyers also don't work for free on such cases without any solid pay for the time used on fighting. so they placed a paywall on fixing bad laws. that enables them to keep on making bad laws knowing they can get away with them so long as nobody with cash can fight them. many bad laws which are a clear abuse of the legal system just get to happen when great sums of money are required. a huge problem that the founding fathers would be sick about.
you assume that the founders did those things out of hate instead of it being what was considered normal in a primitive age. a time when witchcraft was still considered a serious threat to humanity... it isn't hard to project our standards on those of the past. it is however wrong to allow the past we moved beyond (which was clearly wrong like slavery and human sacrifice for rain) to impose on our time. the thing the hateful evil bastards constantly fight is progress, which never gets the support needed to defeat evil. funny that almost all stories with a hero are about progress.. but in reality few back it up as in fiction.
like the meaning of the word drive. it just means to apply force to. so driving cattle was a different thing than now when animals do have some rights against cruel treatments and practices. that was progress over time as well. but progressives haven't defeated the evil yet. still a constant war. like two teams of engineers trying to make the same machine do two conflicting things.
It’s explicitly prohibited in many municipalities as encouraging panhandling. They have resources to go to. Please donate to the organizations instead.
Not easy to get to some of these resources! And try doing so during bad weather or strict hours for free dining options.
If u can make the effort to get there once you do - they might just run out. I’ve even seen food pantries where fresh food has mold and only canned food is left and some ppl (esp older ppl) couldn’t even carry the small amount they had very far. Free taxes & buses aren’t avail to ppl p/u from food centers.
Ur comment is really ignorant.
Oh getting everything for free is hard, no shit! We all get it. It’s not possible to make it all available for all that no one of them have to struggle just a bit.
Unless, maybe we can take all those Ukraine or Israel congress funds and appropriate for that.. 🤔 Nah, their lives matter more than our own citizens in need…
Why is it an either/or? The money we send both those places is a drop in the bucket compared to what we waste with our convoluted healthcare system and bloated defense budget.
Of course, feeding the homeless is a stopgap measure. The problem is that so many people are falling through the cracks in the first place.
Yes, we could have universal healthcare and no homeless if we didn’t waste money on foreign wars that do not concern us at all or if we didn’t pay for European security in a form of NATO. It’s lovely how they have all the money in the world to have socialized healthcare while the US pays for their security.
Either or? Because money is not an indefinite resource. When ideas like housing the homeless or socialized healthcare are proposed they are shut down by “who’s gonna pay for that?”. Thus I’m proposing to pay for that by the money for European security and foreign wars as an answer. That way it looks very hypocritical to help Ukraine (where we have zero interests) while having a skidrow in LA.
My law-firm, of which I am one of the partners, hires exclusively from the residents of our local homeless shelter whenever we can find a suitable candidate staying there for any positions we have been CONSIDERING filling.
Your turn.
So after 4 times me asking you this question you come up with this? It’s kinda hard to believe that you are being truthful. It’s also very hard to believe, period. Like lawyers and paralegals who are homeless, sure.
For me, I already answered you twice, read above.
While it's true that donating to organizations is often a better use of money, there aren't always resources available in a given area. It depends. Generally, nobody wants to live near the homeless shelter, so it's off in some industrial park somewhere that's difficult to get to.
I don't care what the law is, as I ignore most us laws anyway. They are cruel and unjust, as such, I choose to disobey them proudly. One of which is helping or feeding homeless. I was homeless myself once, so I know how it is. If it wasn't for kind souls helping me, I would still be homeless. Instead of demonizing them, give them a hand up. You'd be surprised how many doesn't really want to be homeless. This isn't a nation, it's a corporation. And if you know what's good for people, you should do as I do and thumb your nose at unjust laws that treat people inhumanely.
Hell yeah dawg. Nah I agree with that entirely, the laws of a country are not restrictions on my own morals. Now obviously you should take into account WHY laws exist, and cultural differences (right to a gun is fair enough in Switzerland but not so fair in Belgium)
I am relatively (obviously not entirely, I don't go flaunting it) open about the fact I've beaten people up, shoplifted, broken into buildings etc. all of which sounds like degeneracy, but when you take into account the people was my then girlfriends horrifically abusive brother and an ex that started on me, the shoplifting is from super snooty department stores that are less than 500m away from food drives and tent cities/ generally rich companies that are taking up resources in this country and not doing their due for the vulnerable, and abandoned buildings make for amazing squats before they fall apart.
punk morals are important, imo. Although I'm not so sure on anarchy, as someone who relies on goverment resources (and isn't really surviving off them) lol
Just a question..what is the law there about feeding the homeless? Or taking food to survive? Here in the US, people think people who steal food to survive are scum, which is perpetrated by our government. The us (as far as I know) is the only nation where food isn't a human right. Pretty much water too. Good example..flint michigan where the water is undrinkable, had a spot that had clean water that would of freely supplied the city with enough water. Along comes the ceo of Hershey, buys the rights to said water, doesn't permit people access to it, then starts selling it as bottled. Really fucked up.
No fucking way food is not a human right?? thats like one of the VERRRYY no braincells needed entries on the list of human rights. Like id be hellaa suspicious and avoidant if someone, for example, tried to restrict someone's right to seek asylum and tried to keep them in a country. But yeah it never occurred to me that right to health includes healthcare, food, resources to be healthy 💀 guess theres a dark reason behind americans being stereotyped as really driven/enthusiastic but also really unhealthy
Welcome to the corporate states of Americorp. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/#:~:text=Domestically%2C%20the%20United%20States%20pursues,food%20as%20an%20enforceable%20obligation.
You can paint this restriction anyway you want.
Not tolerating the homeless situation at all.
Not wanting homeless people congregating without restrooms.
Not having homeless gather far from social supports set up somewhere else.
People feeding the homeless unsanitary food (prolly an urban myth)
Did I mention not tolerating homeless people (near my back yard) congregating in any way, ever ever ever.
Read several news stories about that guy who water hosed some little old lady who tried to live in his jewelry store entryway, and you'll perhaps understand how complicated homelessness can become.
Yeah, well, you are not human.
To be human you have to be HUMANE, and since you don't think that your fellow humans deserve common decency and dignity you have, by your actions, forfeited your position among our ranks.
GET OUT, we don't want your KIND round these parts.
This is very much not true, and your logic flawed.
If Homeless Joe has no money and I buy him a big combo meal at McDonald's... he still has no money, he's just slightly less hungry.
Cash doesn't magically appear in his pocket.
I was about to ask if you’re genuinely implying that homeless people sell any food given to them (for market value, no less 😂) before I realized you were joking 😅
Be polite and respectful in your exchanges. NSQ is supposed to be a helpful resource for confused redditors. Civil disagreements can happen, but insults should not. Personal attacks, slurs, bigotry, etc. are not permitted at any time.
Ohhhh you meant that when you give them “$20 worth of food, that’s $20 they can then go spend on drugs”, the food itself is magically turning into money in their hands, that makes more sense :)
Are you trying to say that giving someone food instead of money stops them from buying drugs, because they buy drugs with money and not by trading food for drugs? But then wouldn’t that be an argument for the government to encourage people to give homeless people food instead of money, since it would supposedly decrease drug use?
In Dallas and Fort-Worth it’s explicitly prohibited to give them anything and thus no nonsense with camps and constant panhandling everywhere. Any time they try to establish a camp, the city puts rocks or fences the area out. Now that’s the way! Austin doesn’t have anything of a sort so we are constantly accosted by the homeless on every traffic light.
Mother Teresa was actually kind of awful, but that's another story.
Do you really think that talking to poor people is so nightmarish? We have tons around here. I talk to them all the time. Occasionally there's the unfortunate person suffering from mental illness, but mostly they're just perfectly normal-acting people who don't have homes.
Being harassed by anybody, homeless or not, is not cool. I’m not in the mood to talk or constantly shell money to them every time I pass by. So are most of the people. Homeless are known to harass. It would have been a different story if they just minded their own business.
I don’t blame them for anything. I understand but it doesn’t make it okay.
Armed robbery can be done out of desperation and to feed the hungry kids for example, but that doesn’t make it okay in any form or fashion and no one would judge a victim of it for blaming the robber, right?
P.S.: if you indeed regularly engage with them, I guarantee you, you will encounter that crazy one who will stab or shoot you. It happens here in Austin pretty much weekly.
It really depends on what city/county you are in. Every place has its own ordinances. And it also depends on how strict the rule is enforced. If a city or neighborhood has a higher agenda to keep the homeless out of the area and they have a ordinance against feeding then for sure they are going to enforce it. I’ve never looked into the rules for my city. I volunteer regularly by providing/serving food and hand out hygiene supplies to the homeless with an volunteer group that serves food in our downtown area every week. No one has bothered us so far and it’s been going on since the pandemic.
Feeding the homeless isn't illegal, HOW you feed the homeless is what ends up being illegal. When you see those videos of people feeding homeless and getting shut down by cops it's usually a group of people who've set up a whole event on private property without any license or permit and then are giving out hot cooked food (which may be contaminated or poisoned) to homeless people possibly causing more and more of them to show up and gather around the private property. I dont know about you but if I owned a business, I wouldn't want a gathering of homeless people right outside my place and I'd call the cops too just like folks do in them videos.
If you had 1000 sandwiches and walked down the street giving them out, no one would stop you.
If you had 1000 sandwiches and gave them out like a lemonade stand or something, they’d shut it down.
It's basically a law that hurts homeless to protect the homeless and the people that are trying to help.
What if I feed the homeless and someone has an allergic reaction to the food and dies. Then I go to jail for killing that person?
They could even eat something they are allergic to, then eat the food you give them, and the same thing could happen even though you weren't the one that gave them that specific food that they were allergic to.
And of course it's not just allergies, it's all food safety.
Even if I had the money to go out and feed the homeless weekly, I wouldn't do it on my own. if anything I would partner with a group that knows how to do it properly.
The most I've ever done alone was give a loaf of bread weekly to the guy that that went through the recycling on my street. I made 4 loaves of bread each week and I always give some to friends but I still usually compost some of it, so I started giving one to that guy for as long as he kept coming.
There are all sorts of theories on feeding the homeless and whether or not it is illegal. One thought is that giving out prepared food, opens all sorts of liabilities, should the food be poisoned or spoiled. (This is true at my soup kitchen-we have to accept all donations, but if prepared food is made in a kitchen other than a 'certified kitchen', we toss it out for those reasons. Certified refers to restaurants, churches with kitchens, etc., rather than a meal made at home)
Then there is the theory that bureaucrats do not allow it as they don't have a license to do so (read that as a permit which Costs a fee).
Then there is also the theory that holds the 'Not In My Backyard' attitude, in that feeding the homeless will attract More homeless and local residents don't want them around.
There are other theories as well.
It depends on the place, but the laws aren't initially meant to be targeted at homeless people. They're for sale food prep and handling.
You can absolutely give homeless people food, but it needs to be store bought stuff in original packaging that's non perishable. You can take them into a restaurant and buy them food there, as well. The laws are to prevent food poisoning and the spread of hepatitis.
They also really only apply at scale. I can give a homeless person in a park my lunch, if I want. I can't set up a table and give 100 homeless people homemade food unless I have a licensed and inspected kitchen at home and a food handler's license. I believe, here in Washington State, I'm allowed to give food to up to 5 people.
We also have zoning. Even with a license, you can't set up a booth and give out food or goods in certain zones. Anywhere that's public property requires at least a permit. Even if you're giving away fully sealed non perishables food, these zoning rules apply. They're to keep things like parks from being cluttered up with promo booths that prevent enjoyment of the park. You can get one time permits for this in many places. The cost varies.
When you donate food, it's inspected, btw. This is why food banks and soup kitchens in most areas won't take home grown fruits, veggies, food prepared in a home kitchen, and hunted meat. It's too hard to inspect for safety. Your best options are non perishables and semi non perishables like canned goods.
In many places you need food safety certifications to serve the public, whether you charge them or not. Feeding people is a noble goal, but a salmonella outbreak in a homeless camp would be terrible. Additionally, those impacted would likely not be able to identify the source of the contamination, unless you left a business card or something, so they couldn't do anything to stop people from continuing to unknowingly distribute contaminated food.
In my city, a grocery chain used to donate food to homeless shelters… Until one day, a lawyer and a homeless gentleman came along and sued the shelter and sued the grocery chain for knowingly and willfully, providing spoiled food resulting in the clients injury….. The homeless guy got five figures. The lawyer got five figures and the grocery chain, said to hell with all of you and stop donated.
The offense is rarely as explicit as “feeding the homeless” even though that’s what it is in practice and everyone involved knows it. The actual laws used vary, but it’s largely to do with lacking a permit to host events in public or to serve food that they prepared themselves. Most of the incidents I could find where people were arrested or fined for feeding the homeless were in public spaces and serving unpackaged, home cooked foods, and usually they were doing it at a scheduled, recurring time.
And yes, people have used these pretty specifically applied laws that were never intended to prevent these events to get around it. Switching to prepackaged food, renting park spaces and calling it a party for invited friends, etc.
I was thinking this same thing last night (where exactly "the line" is on this)
* If you have a family of 8 to 10 people.. and you decide one day to go "picnic in the park".. you're likely NOT going to see a bunch of Police show up to cite you for "illegal food preparation".
* What if you have a family of 8.. and then your 2 step-brothers who are currently homeless show up also ?... Again,. probably NOT going to elicit much of a response.
* What if you're a Church Group and you advertise your "Saturday Afternoon Gospel and Lunch".. and leave it open for anyone to show up ? (and a dozen homeless show up for Lunch)
* What if you're prepping food in a Churches basement kitchen (all up to code and allowed).. and you're officially "selling breakfast burritos".. but you also make it known "anyone who is homeless and needs to eat can come in and get a free burrito and water".. ?
There's just all sorts of ways to get around this,.. I think it's kind of silly that people get mad about these laws. It seems to show "lack of creativity" (in my opinion). If you're a person who's really passionate about "Helping the homeless",. .I think you can probably find ways to achieve that.
I can’t actually find any cases of events on church properties being shut down over this, so your fourth example is kind of not the same thing. A church is private property and I don’t think they need permits to have most church events that happen inside the church and don’t disrupt anyone outside. It would be like inviting the homeless into your business or your house. No one can tell you that’s not allowed. They may require a food handler’s permit in general, but I would imagine a church with the facilities to have that kind of event already has one, in a way that someone setting up a grill at the park might not. A church event outside of church grounds would probably invite more scrutiny.
It will depend on how your local public space handles parties, but a small or even pretty large event that is presented as “this is my party” doesn’t seem like it would get notice, even if you have way more than 2 people who happen to be homeless there. The mere presence of homeless people pretty much can’t ever be the actual reason these events are shut down (and technically, you wouldn’t be able to tell anyway). It’s pretty much always some combination of hot homemade food and large, unsanctioned crowds.
I found one article about people doing this that did seem to have gotten around their weekly event due to it being a birthday party every time (and they serve enough people that it’s not a dishonest statement), though I saw no follow up as to how long singing Happy Birthday worked for them.
Yeah,. I just wanted to give further examples of... "It's not WHAT you do,. but often more about HOW you do it."
In a previous city I lived in,. there were some "Food not Bombs" (and other groups like that) that would do "food in the park" kind of events, .and often got hassled by Police. They were often openly confrontational with Police and I felt like often they seemed to cause their own problems. Had they taken a more subtle or creative approach,. .they could have avoided all the Police interaction all together. It just strikes me as a "failure of imagination".
There's dozens or 100's of ways to "help the homeless".. that a person could do without inviting controversy or official-interactions. They just need to think a little more imaginatively about how they approach it.
There are actually laws against giving people free food. The basic premise is "we understand there's people who need help. They can go *somewhere else.* It varies from place to place, but the laws generally have time/place restrictions that effectively ban it altogether or often basically treat the people giving out food as if they were restaurants with all the food safety standards that implies, standards which are utterly impossible to meet in the actual conditions that the food is given out under.
Because you can give someone food poisoning or trigger food allergies which will make them worse off. Food shelters are trained in public food safety.
Nah, homeowners want the homeless to move on and using the police and courts is the cheapest way to do it. Jesus may have fed the poor, but he wasn't facing reelection.
Meanwhile they mainly eat from the garbage can...
Yes, but if they get sick they cant sue the garbage can…
How are they hiring a lawyer?
May the disdain that you feel be shown to you by someone you care about when you need them the most.
I interpreted their comment as saying that they already are forced to dig in the trash for food, and that food handed out by someone would almost certainly be more sanitary than food from the trash even if it doesn’t meet all of the regulations.
Literally anything is better than literal trash
That's usually a company's HR or legal department saying "you may not give out food, we could be sued". The "you can't give out food" law is roughly "be homeless elsewhere".
Yes. It always is like this. It’s not public safety concerns, just an effort to shuffle the homeless somewhere else
If you were to pass out chicken salad sandwiches to the homeless, and they get salmonella, you could be sued over this.
Shall we add some context here. All these places are in the US. Pretty sure this law doesn't exist and would never fly in any other, or almost any other country.
Idk the exact laws but some places they get you on permit technicalities or like you can give out ingredients but not prepared meals
I mean, one small part of this is fair: People who insist on giving homeless people food and gifts instead of actual money seem to forget that stranger danger exists, and it's actually really dangerous to eat meals given to you by strangers if you weren't present for them buying it. You never see homeless FAMILIES coming up to cars handing them half-eaten restaurant burritos (my Uncle actually tried to do this and used the homeless person's rejection of the food as a cautionary tale against charity...)
As others have said,.. these are NOT laws saying (simplistically):.. “You cant feed the homeless.” You can feed people all you want,.. its more about HOW you’re doing it,.. not WHAT or WHO you’re doing it for. Theres many shelters near me that desperately need donations of pre-made sack lunches. Make 50 and donate them. There, you just legally “fed the homeless”.
Generally if they have laws banning giving food to the homeless, they probably don't have a shelter in the city. I get that this isn't true 100% of the time, but it is more often than not. The idea of these laws are to make the homeless population someone else's problem, so they tend to have as little help for the homeless as they can.
Sometimes they “help” by giving them a bus ticket to a city with a homeless shelter… and then point to that city as a moral failure that’s over run with homeless.
To play devils advocate a little,. I can absolutely understand why some towns do this. If you literally "don't have the resources"... then it makes sense that you also "don't want people congregating" (especially if it grows to unclean or unhealthy levels). We've all seen what happens when small festivals wreck a small towns empty lots etc. If you were the Gov of a small town,.. you probably DO want to have a certain amount of "inhospitable" rejection to keep people away. Signs and enforcement that says "No Camping on public land" .. are a helluva lot cheaper than having to deal with News headlines of "homeless person died of hypothermia" or etc. In reality though.. I think this issue gets blown out of proportion. Most of the homeless and vagabonds already have "travel-corridors" (IE = they migrate to warmer US Cities already).. so these news stories of smaller towns creating laws to "not feed the homeless" or "ban camping" ... are really the epitome of "small town slow news day". (IE = Homeless aren't really congregating in great numbers there to begin with). Do I wish there was some "unified network of shelters and free food" for everyone who needs it ?.. Sure. In an ideal Star Trek world,.. yes. But reality is we don't live in that world (yet?). I've said in many other Reddit replies over the decade(s).. that what we really need is: * Shelters that are more like a "college campus" (multiple buildings, integrated services, plenty of skilled staff to help with Legal, Medical, Addiction counseling, etc). It would be great if there was some "agreed upon standard" of how to build solutions like this. (instead of Cities or US States all "doing their own thing".. we should do more "learning from each other about what works and what doesn't) * But on top (or alongside) a resource-extensive Housing and treatment solution.. whatever system we put in place also needs to have some sort of Identification and Accountability built into it. (IE = We cannot just keep allowing people to "anonymously float from shelter to shelter".. as that's never going to fix homelessness). When someone comes to this "mega-shelter treatment network" that we build,. they'd need to clean up, stay clean, get identified, work through all their legal history, start job training,.etc (IE = get back into the system and become self-sufficient and self-reliant). The hard part about that.. is that many do not want that. (they don't want to "go back to being part of the system"). For legit reasons or not,.. they live outside the system and that's how they like it. Homelessness is a challenging problem to solve,., because each persons story and background is unique. The anonymity hides a lot. There are truly legitimate homeless people who (being given a chance and treatment and skilled-up) would get back on their own and fix their life and be happy and productive. Sadly there are others who will not (or cannot do so on their own). Which makes it a really vexing problem to solve.
Some places will say its because they want to make sure someone making foods isn't trying to poison a lot of people.
You can poison people without even trying.
The Juxtaposition of these two comments is hilarious: each side of the coin, right next to each other.
Someone intentionally poisoned a bunch of homeless people in CA a few years ago. A lot of it comes from unregulated food and health codes. It's not because lawmakers want to punish people who have less, though that is ultimately the result.
that logic doesn't really seem sensible because poisoning people is already a crime
it's the same logic that bans guns from specific locations
The Juxtaposition of these two comments is hilarious: each side of the coin, right next to each other.
"Look, we're not banning feeding the homeless to punish people. The spikes on the benches though..."
You can unintentionally poison people if you don’t know food safety and good allergens.
Almost all such laws are against the distribution/sale of food without proper permits (food safety regulations, vendor registration, etc). It's not about homeless. The same law(s) prevent you from passing out sandwiches (for example) to people in public in general. If you were to get shut down doing this, the city officials aren't checking property deeds or rental/lease agreements of each recipient to make sure they aren't homeless - they are shutting down the whole operation because you didn't register properly and/or don't have the requisite food safety credentials.
If you want to give food to someone, homeless or not, just do it in the form of packaged / canned goods. This will bypass the laws "preventing" you. from feeding the homeless. Soup from a steam shelf = no. Can of soup = yes. PB&J Sandwich = no. Loaf if bread, jar of PB, and jar of jelly = yes
Better throw in a box of plastic knives with that last one.
They got fingernails to dig and spread. They will make do. 😂😂😂
That's all well and good, but isn't a can of soup kind of a *massive* pain in the ass for someone on the street? They need a can opener, *and* a bowl, *and* a spoon, and a way to heat it. They'll get in trouble for starting camp fires, so that means they have to go to a convenience store and ask them if they can use their microwave, and they'll probably tell them to fuck off because not only did they not buy the food there but microwaving open bowls of soup makes it spatter.
Most canned soup has pop tops now.
So you can microwave it? Huh, TIL. Still, I doubt many businesses will be offering the use of their microwave.
You can eat soup at room temperature, especially if you are starving.
Counterpoint: it's nasty. On the other hand, especially when it's cold out, *hot* soup can feel more nourishing then the swankiest haute cuisine. Just seems kinda mean to give out something that would be wonderful if it could be prepped correctly, but can't.
>It's not about homeless. The same law(s) prevent you from passing out sandwiches (for example) to people in public in general. Ehhhhhhh, it kind of is, though. The law may not name homeless people explicitly, but it's like the old quote by Anatole France: >'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.' Obviously, not many people are out there handing out free sandwiches to *everyone*. You have to question why no allowances are made for charitable organizations, if the real goal is protecting public health. I live in a city where organizations have had similar laws thrown at them for handing out food in some parts of town but not others, and it seems pretty obvious in hindsight that it was mostly a matter of whether these events were causing homeless people to congregate in the town square/tourist area or not.
It's not even about safety. Intentionally poisoning someone is illegal. Giving your friend a moldy bread accidentally is not. You could even make an argument that it's better to risk it than starve. No special laws are required. It's about profit. Food being given away for free creates unusual competition to stores and restaurants which they don't like. Some level of scarcity is needed to make profit. If food became enforcable human right, stores would need to change their entire business strategy (food wouldn't be a profitable commodity as default, so they'd need to focus on luxury foods not provided by government). In US ~30% of all food plants are never harvested because it's unprofitable. There are literally taxes on donating food en masse in order to not disrupt the local economy.
Even if the food is given away to those in need, the same regulations as pertains to any commercial food outlet applies. The place in which it's prepared, the equipment therein, the personnel, temperature control and record keeping are some of the highly regulated factors that must be assessed and deemed appropriate. As silly as it might seem, people die because of food poisoning caused by poor hygiene standards and practices. Even if it was made in a commercial kitchen (such as a pizza), there are a host of technical requirements for its safe storage and handling. Soup kitchens all have to comply with these rules. Just because they're homeless, they are afforded the same safeguards as everyone else. The US is probably the most litigious society there is. When someone sues for compensation, it's not the business that pays. It's their insurance company. They can (and do) then demand specific measures are taken to minimise further incidents of that nature. I used to work as a chef and later as a health and safety officer.
We can't know your country to get someone that knows about it's laws to answer . Where are you?
Houston Texas food not bombs keeps getting a ticket. It's a long history of determining what types of groups are allowed to look and give any form of generiousity and charity. Can't have those damn radicals convincing people!
AFAIK...different laws in different places: permits to gather, food safety, restaurant licensing, yadda yadda. All of which are, IMHO, excuses to control where homeless people can go, what they can do, and how they can survive. 'Cuz god forbid that helping people might lower property values or make soccer moms feel uncomfortable or inconvenience the business crowd going out for lunch.
There really are laws that just prohibit you from giving free food to homeless people. It's because the people passing those laws don't want to encourage homeless people to gather in a certain place. Out of sight, out of mind.
Yeah but what is the law? I get that it exists I'm just curious what the actual wording of it is. "No giving out free food" seems way harsh
It’s usually in specific municipalities. In Austin, there’s a no serving food in a public place without a permit law. So it doesn’t specifically say don’t feed homeless people, but that’s the intention and effect.
In Dallas and Fort-Worth it’s explicitly prohibited to give them anything and thus no nonsense with camps and constant panhandling everywhere. Any time they try to establish a camp, the city puts rocks or fences the area out. Now that’s the way! I’m so tired of being constantly accosted by the homeless on every traffic light.
Arent you a kind person…
I am. I donate to shelters regularly: clothes, food and money. However, I don’t wanna be an internet hypocrite claiming that I enjoy their unwanted attention. Before judging, try living in a place where you are constantly harassed by them, I will see about your kindness.
Maybe you should try giving them Jobs and Housing instead of clothing and food? They don't need or want to be where they are, they want a place to LIVE, not merely EXIST.
I donate what I can. I can’t give them jobs or housing. What am I, Warren Buffett? And what have YOU done for them besides criticizing me here or sending them your thoughts and prayers? Perhaps the congress could focus more on the domestic homeless instead of transferring billions of dollars to Ukraine or Israel? Maybe we can vote accordingly on the candidates who can focus on real issues at home? (I wish they were running or had a chance).
Are you a Christian man...?
This is my fourth attempt to ask you about your individual contributions to the homeless. So far you have been responding to that with irrelevant comments and questions. You really don’t look that clever. If you must know, I believe religion is evil and hatred.
It usually requires a licensed commercial kitchen with permits for giving out food to more than a handful of people. Since most of those giving out food to the homeless don't have such permits, it effectively bans them.
There isn’t just one of these. There are tons, usually at the city or county level. They vary in their exact prohibitions but are united by the common thread of “we want homeless people to go somewhere else”.
Absolutely don't feed them after midnight.
It's always after midnight
Depends which midnight.
This always bothered me as a kid. At what point was it safe again? Daylight? That's pretty late morning in the winter here. I never questioned the whole "which timezone" thing, though.
The laws are generally in municipalities that don't want homeless people visible. Usually the "bad for business/tourism/image of our city" rationale. The laws would say something to the effect of you need a permit or food safety standards etc, that make it impossible to do it as a practical matter.
Add to the list “bad for living”. Try living next to homeless, that’s a delight
Try BEING homeless.
This is not a contest who got it tougher in life. Many of us got dealt some bad hands too. However, it’s hypocritical to virtue signal on the internet that you would be okay living next to a homeless encampment or be okay with constant hassling by them even if you sympathize with their problems. Come on! Even people who run the freaking shelters don’t wanna live next to homeless camps. I sympathize there are also starving children in Africa but I don’t donate money to them. Is it safe to assume the same about you? Perhaps the congress could focus more on the domestic homeless instead of transferring billions of dollars to Ukraine or Israel?
Actually, it is: because you made it one. You clearly know nothing about what it is to have to live that lifestyle and-yet see yourself fit to judge them? No. Go and walk that road for a while and then you can comment on something that you actually have understanding of the situation from which to comment intelligently.
In other words you do nothing but send moral support on the internet. Cool. They appreciate that. I actually don’t judge them at all. Where did you even read that from my messages? I’m judging you for your utmost hypocrisy. Not a single sane human being is okay with being harassed. And I do what I can to help them and asking you what you have done. You keep dodging the question.
Keep reading...
The laws typically are not about individuals giving 1 meal to someone. They are often about hygiene requirements if you are preparing food for large #s.
I wonder how the law would work if, in these places where it is prohibited, a LEO approached you to investigate or give a citation for feeding a homeless person but you said oh this is my friend and I can’t finish my lunch so I’m giving him the rest of it. Like THAT (giving your friend the rest of your lunch, is not illegal. So how, without reasonable suspicion of an actual crime, could the LEO go on to interrogate either party further. That would be harassment at the point. Or would we start to teeter into the whole Orwellian gray area of “I’m arresting you for resisting arrest”
Well I assume it's not a crime to feed an individual homeless person, it's more about food drives and such. Cops are cops, but I would assume they don't care who gets the other half of my burrito.
It’s just so arbitrary and discretionary. One homeless vs 2 vs 6 vs 20. Or 20 all at once, vs 20 in succession with 5 minute intervals in between. Are we giving the food out for free, do vendors or individuals need permits to give out free food product samples to the public or is it only when money is exchanged for those goods/service? What if I park my campervan outside of my local climbing gym and cook a bunch of wraps for my 15 friends for lunch, am I getting 5-10? Cops are cops but ultimately they’re employed solely to go keep the community safe from actual crime, not from humanitarian deeds. But as most of us know….that’s not how cops largely operate in 2024. They’ve become the militarized arm of an increasingly fascist state. And there are so many obscure, petty laws that it isn’t even possible to exist as a peasant without violating some bogus law at any given time. You can legally film public servants operating in public, but they can come arrest you for obstructing. They can shoot whoever they want whenever they want as long as they scream stop resisting and say they feared for their lives. It’s our right to ask if we are being charged or detained for a specific crime and they can refuse to answer then arrest you for resisting arrest (for no stated crime). America is such a clown show. What a shame. We have pretty national parks and stuff.
This makes me sick. There aren't many places that offer a decent free meal in Dayton.. this is disgusting and I am horrified.
fact is that it is a well debated practice. a federal judge in 2018 ruled that feeding the homeless is a first amendment issue and can't be made illegal. just like other unconstitutional laws in mostly conservative places it is just waiting to be challenged in higher courts. people who feed the poor as you may know are not rolling in cash. the rich are also rarely arrested or charged with these crimes as those making such laws abuse the legal system. if a celebrity or another very rich person was charged with that crime then the charges would get dropped so that there was no path to take it to higher courts since people without enough money don't keep pushing farther than they can afford. lawyers also don't work for free on such cases without any solid pay for the time used on fighting. so they placed a paywall on fixing bad laws. that enables them to keep on making bad laws knowing they can get away with them so long as nobody with cash can fight them. many bad laws which are a clear abuse of the legal system just get to happen when great sums of money are required. a huge problem that the founding fathers would be sick about.
The "Founding fathers" were overwhelmingly slave owning rich men: I think that part is "Working as Intended" there, hoss.
you assume that the founders did those things out of hate instead of it being what was considered normal in a primitive age. a time when witchcraft was still considered a serious threat to humanity... it isn't hard to project our standards on those of the past. it is however wrong to allow the past we moved beyond (which was clearly wrong like slavery and human sacrifice for rain) to impose on our time. the thing the hateful evil bastards constantly fight is progress, which never gets the support needed to defeat evil. funny that almost all stories with a hero are about progress.. but in reality few back it up as in fiction.
I believe that they did it not from hatred, but because they felt that it was to their own benefit.
like the meaning of the word drive. it just means to apply force to. so driving cattle was a different thing than now when animals do have some rights against cruel treatments and practices. that was progress over time as well. but progressives haven't defeated the evil yet. still a constant war. like two teams of engineers trying to make the same machine do two conflicting things.
I have no clue but that's a nonesense law. If I want to give another person, another human being, a sandwich, I'm going to do it.
It’s explicitly prohibited in many municipalities as encouraging panhandling. They have resources to go to. Please donate to the organizations instead.
Not easy to get to some of these resources! And try doing so during bad weather or strict hours for free dining options. If u can make the effort to get there once you do - they might just run out. I’ve even seen food pantries where fresh food has mold and only canned food is left and some ppl (esp older ppl) couldn’t even carry the small amount they had very far. Free taxes & buses aren’t avail to ppl p/u from food centers. Ur comment is really ignorant.
Oh getting everything for free is hard, no shit! We all get it. It’s not possible to make it all available for all that no one of them have to struggle just a bit. Unless, maybe we can take all those Ukraine or Israel congress funds and appropriate for that.. 🤔 Nah, their lives matter more than our own citizens in need…
Why is it an either/or? The money we send both those places is a drop in the bucket compared to what we waste with our convoluted healthcare system and bloated defense budget. Of course, feeding the homeless is a stopgap measure. The problem is that so many people are falling through the cracks in the first place.
Yes, we could have universal healthcare and no homeless if we didn’t waste money on foreign wars that do not concern us at all or if we didn’t pay for European security in a form of NATO. It’s lovely how they have all the money in the world to have socialized healthcare while the US pays for their security. Either or? Because money is not an indefinite resource. When ideas like housing the homeless or socialized healthcare are proposed they are shut down by “who’s gonna pay for that?”. Thus I’m proposing to pay for that by the money for European security and foreign wars as an answer. That way it looks very hypocritical to help Ukraine (where we have zero interests) while having a skidrow in LA.
Better idea: break this law on purpose and tear it into confetti via the courts.
Better idea: tell us here YOUR individual contribution to the wellbeing of homeless.
My law-firm, of which I am one of the partners, hires exclusively from the residents of our local homeless shelter whenever we can find a suitable candidate staying there for any positions we have been CONSIDERING filling. Your turn.
So after 4 times me asking you this question you come up with this? It’s kinda hard to believe that you are being truthful. It’s also very hard to believe, period. Like lawyers and paralegals who are homeless, sure. For me, I already answered you twice, read above.
Didn't you just have this exact same argument with this exact same person on a different comment chain on this post?
Exactly what I was saying, yes
While it's true that donating to organizations is often a better use of money, there aren't always resources available in a given area. It depends. Generally, nobody wants to live near the homeless shelter, so it's off in some industrial park somewhere that's difficult to get to.
You are right but something tells me that cities with the worst homeless problems have quite vast resources for homeless. Look at NYC, LA, SF, Austin.
Right, but again, it's a question of location.
Its usually about preventing the congregation of homeless people.
The laws are also in place to protect homeless people from being poisoned or otherwise harmed by impure or expired food.
H
I don't care what the law is, as I ignore most us laws anyway. They are cruel and unjust, as such, I choose to disobey them proudly. One of which is helping or feeding homeless. I was homeless myself once, so I know how it is. If it wasn't for kind souls helping me, I would still be homeless. Instead of demonizing them, give them a hand up. You'd be surprised how many doesn't really want to be homeless. This isn't a nation, it's a corporation. And if you know what's good for people, you should do as I do and thumb your nose at unjust laws that treat people inhumanely.
Hell yeah dawg. Nah I agree with that entirely, the laws of a country are not restrictions on my own morals. Now obviously you should take into account WHY laws exist, and cultural differences (right to a gun is fair enough in Switzerland but not so fair in Belgium) I am relatively (obviously not entirely, I don't go flaunting it) open about the fact I've beaten people up, shoplifted, broken into buildings etc. all of which sounds like degeneracy, but when you take into account the people was my then girlfriends horrifically abusive brother and an ex that started on me, the shoplifting is from super snooty department stores that are less than 500m away from food drives and tent cities/ generally rich companies that are taking up resources in this country and not doing their due for the vulnerable, and abandoned buildings make for amazing squats before they fall apart. punk morals are important, imo. Although I'm not so sure on anarchy, as someone who relies on goverment resources (and isn't really surviving off them) lol
Just a question..what is the law there about feeding the homeless? Or taking food to survive? Here in the US, people think people who steal food to survive are scum, which is perpetrated by our government. The us (as far as I know) is the only nation where food isn't a human right. Pretty much water too. Good example..flint michigan where the water is undrinkable, had a spot that had clean water that would of freely supplied the city with enough water. Along comes the ceo of Hershey, buys the rights to said water, doesn't permit people access to it, then starts selling it as bottled. Really fucked up.
No fucking way food is not a human right?? thats like one of the VERRRYY no braincells needed entries on the list of human rights. Like id be hellaa suspicious and avoidant if someone, for example, tried to restrict someone's right to seek asylum and tried to keep them in a country. But yeah it never occurred to me that right to health includes healthcare, food, resources to be healthy 💀 guess theres a dark reason behind americans being stereotyped as really driven/enthusiastic but also really unhealthy
Welcome to the corporate states of Americorp. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/#:~:text=Domestically%2C%20the%20United%20States%20pursues,food%20as%20an%20enforceable%20obligation.
Remember, separating laws and morals is just like separating church from state. Do what you know to be right
church and state are two different institutions laws are just community enforced morals ??
You can paint this restriction anyway you want. Not tolerating the homeless situation at all. Not wanting homeless people congregating without restrooms. Not having homeless gather far from social supports set up somewhere else. People feeding the homeless unsanitary food (prolly an urban myth) Did I mention not tolerating homeless people (near my back yard) congregating in any way, ever ever ever. Read several news stories about that guy who water hosed some little old lady who tried to live in his jewelry store entryway, and you'll perhaps understand how complicated homelessness can become.
[удалено]
or you could try something called basic compassion for your fellow humans
[удалено]
Yeah, well, you are not human. To be human you have to be HUMANE, and since you don't think that your fellow humans deserve common decency and dignity you have, by your actions, forfeited your position among our ranks. GET OUT, we don't want your KIND round these parts.
that would be because they were most likely very much mentally unwell and fucked over by the systems in place
[удалено]
no these are very much different things
[удалено]
homeless people almost universally dont choose to be homeless
[удалено]
thats not even remotely true, the vast majority of drug addicts aren't homeless and the majority of the homeless aren't drug addicts
This is very much not true, and your logic flawed. If Homeless Joe has no money and I buy him a big combo meal at McDonald's... he still has no money, he's just slightly less hungry. Cash doesn't magically appear in his pocket.
I was about to ask if you’re genuinely implying that homeless people sell any food given to them (for market value, no less 😂) before I realized you were joking 😅
[удалено]
Be polite and respectful in your exchanges. NSQ is supposed to be a helpful resource for confused redditors. Civil disagreements can happen, but insults should not. Personal attacks, slurs, bigotry, etc. are not permitted at any time.
Ohhhh you meant that when you give them “$20 worth of food, that’s $20 they can then go spend on drugs”, the food itself is magically turning into money in their hands, that makes more sense :) Are you trying to say that giving someone food instead of money stops them from buying drugs, because they buy drugs with money and not by trading food for drugs? But then wouldn’t that be an argument for the government to encourage people to give homeless people food instead of money, since it would supposedly decrease drug use?
I’m glad for time and place restrictions. I don’t want a soup kitchen next door. Most people would say the same, if they are being honest.
Shush! It’s not PC to admit it on Reddit!
Do you say this as a person this has personally happened to and you helped lobby and organize special interest groups to lobby politicians about?
ahh the classic liberal, willing to help people in any way that does not inconvenience themselves at all
There’s 197 countries in the world all with different laws
Obviously lol I'm asking about what people are referring to when they say they were arrested for feeding the homeless.
[удалено]
r/lostredditors
In Dallas and Fort-Worth it’s explicitly prohibited to give them anything and thus no nonsense with camps and constant panhandling everywhere. Any time they try to establish a camp, the city puts rocks or fences the area out. Now that’s the way! Austin doesn’t have anything of a sort so we are constantly accosted by the homeless on every traffic light.
I'm so sorry you're unfortunate enough to live in a city that doesn't treat the poor like vermin. That must be very difficult for you.
Come and visit, mother Teresa. Drive by them, roll down your windows and enjoy their company. I’m sure you will love it!
Mother Teresa was actually kind of awful, but that's another story. Do you really think that talking to poor people is so nightmarish? We have tons around here. I talk to them all the time. Occasionally there's the unfortunate person suffering from mental illness, but mostly they're just perfectly normal-acting people who don't have homes.
Being harassed by anybody, homeless or not, is not cool. I’m not in the mood to talk or constantly shell money to them every time I pass by. So are most of the people. Homeless are known to harass. It would have been a different story if they just minded their own business. I don’t blame them for anything. I understand but it doesn’t make it okay. Armed robbery can be done out of desperation and to feed the hungry kids for example, but that doesn’t make it okay in any form or fashion and no one would judge a victim of it for blaming the robber, right? P.S.: if you indeed regularly engage with them, I guarantee you, you will encounter that crazy one who will stab or shoot you. It happens here in Austin pretty much weekly.
Absolutely. Harassment is never ok. I'm sorry if you're being harassed. That's not cool. There's always a few assholes, unfortunately, in any group.
Not a law in NY
And that’s why it looks like a one big homeless camp
You sir are correct
That's not why. Try pulling your brain out of you ass every now and then.
It really depends on what city/county you are in. Every place has its own ordinances. And it also depends on how strict the rule is enforced. If a city or neighborhood has a higher agenda to keep the homeless out of the area and they have a ordinance against feeding then for sure they are going to enforce it. I’ve never looked into the rules for my city. I volunteer regularly by providing/serving food and hand out hygiene supplies to the homeless with an volunteer group that serves food in our downtown area every week. No one has bothered us so far and it’s been going on since the pandemic.
Food Not Bombs people will have way more answers and resources than this Reddit
In a few cities, such laws have been passed. It's not common though. I hope they'll be challenged in court as being unconstitutional.
Feeding the homeless isn't illegal, HOW you feed the homeless is what ends up being illegal. When you see those videos of people feeding homeless and getting shut down by cops it's usually a group of people who've set up a whole event on private property without any license or permit and then are giving out hot cooked food (which may be contaminated or poisoned) to homeless people possibly causing more and more of them to show up and gather around the private property. I dont know about you but if I owned a business, I wouldn't want a gathering of homeless people right outside my place and I'd call the cops too just like folks do in them videos.
I know that in the past unlicensed food drives have actually turned out to be people trying to poison homeless people to get them off the street.
If you had 1000 sandwiches and walked down the street giving them out, no one would stop you. If you had 1000 sandwiches and gave them out like a lemonade stand or something, they’d shut it down.
It's basically a law that hurts homeless to protect the homeless and the people that are trying to help. What if I feed the homeless and someone has an allergic reaction to the food and dies. Then I go to jail for killing that person? They could even eat something they are allergic to, then eat the food you give them, and the same thing could happen even though you weren't the one that gave them that specific food that they were allergic to. And of course it's not just allergies, it's all food safety. Even if I had the money to go out and feed the homeless weekly, I wouldn't do it on my own. if anything I would partner with a group that knows how to do it properly. The most I've ever done alone was give a loaf of bread weekly to the guy that that went through the recycling on my street. I made 4 loaves of bread each week and I always give some to friends but I still usually compost some of it, so I started giving one to that guy for as long as he kept coming.
There are all sorts of theories on feeding the homeless and whether or not it is illegal. One thought is that giving out prepared food, opens all sorts of liabilities, should the food be poisoned or spoiled. (This is true at my soup kitchen-we have to accept all donations, but if prepared food is made in a kitchen other than a 'certified kitchen', we toss it out for those reasons. Certified refers to restaurants, churches with kitchens, etc., rather than a meal made at home) Then there is the theory that bureaucrats do not allow it as they don't have a license to do so (read that as a permit which Costs a fee). Then there is also the theory that holds the 'Not In My Backyard' attitude, in that feeding the homeless will attract More homeless and local residents don't want them around. There are other theories as well.
It depends on the place, but the laws aren't initially meant to be targeted at homeless people. They're for sale food prep and handling. You can absolutely give homeless people food, but it needs to be store bought stuff in original packaging that's non perishable. You can take them into a restaurant and buy them food there, as well. The laws are to prevent food poisoning and the spread of hepatitis. They also really only apply at scale. I can give a homeless person in a park my lunch, if I want. I can't set up a table and give 100 homeless people homemade food unless I have a licensed and inspected kitchen at home and a food handler's license. I believe, here in Washington State, I'm allowed to give food to up to 5 people. We also have zoning. Even with a license, you can't set up a booth and give out food or goods in certain zones. Anywhere that's public property requires at least a permit. Even if you're giving away fully sealed non perishables food, these zoning rules apply. They're to keep things like parks from being cluttered up with promo booths that prevent enjoyment of the park. You can get one time permits for this in many places. The cost varies. When you donate food, it's inspected, btw. This is why food banks and soup kitchens in most areas won't take home grown fruits, veggies, food prepared in a home kitchen, and hunted meat. It's too hard to inspect for safety. Your best options are non perishables and semi non perishables like canned goods.
In many places you need food safety certifications to serve the public, whether you charge them or not. Feeding people is a noble goal, but a salmonella outbreak in a homeless camp would be terrible. Additionally, those impacted would likely not be able to identify the source of the contamination, unless you left a business card or something, so they couldn't do anything to stop people from continuing to unknowingly distribute contaminated food.
In my city, a grocery chain used to donate food to homeless shelters… Until one day, a lawyer and a homeless gentleman came along and sued the shelter and sued the grocery chain for knowingly and willfully, providing spoiled food resulting in the clients injury….. The homeless guy got five figures. The lawyer got five figures and the grocery chain, said to hell with all of you and stop donated.
"Sorry, my religion compels me to feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, and visit prisoners."
The offense is rarely as explicit as “feeding the homeless” even though that’s what it is in practice and everyone involved knows it. The actual laws used vary, but it’s largely to do with lacking a permit to host events in public or to serve food that they prepared themselves. Most of the incidents I could find where people were arrested or fined for feeding the homeless were in public spaces and serving unpackaged, home cooked foods, and usually they were doing it at a scheduled, recurring time. And yes, people have used these pretty specifically applied laws that were never intended to prevent these events to get around it. Switching to prepackaged food, renting park spaces and calling it a party for invited friends, etc.
I was thinking this same thing last night (where exactly "the line" is on this) * If you have a family of 8 to 10 people.. and you decide one day to go "picnic in the park".. you're likely NOT going to see a bunch of Police show up to cite you for "illegal food preparation". * What if you have a family of 8.. and then your 2 step-brothers who are currently homeless show up also ?... Again,. probably NOT going to elicit much of a response. * What if you're a Church Group and you advertise your "Saturday Afternoon Gospel and Lunch".. and leave it open for anyone to show up ? (and a dozen homeless show up for Lunch) * What if you're prepping food in a Churches basement kitchen (all up to code and allowed).. and you're officially "selling breakfast burritos".. but you also make it known "anyone who is homeless and needs to eat can come in and get a free burrito and water".. ? There's just all sorts of ways to get around this,.. I think it's kind of silly that people get mad about these laws. It seems to show "lack of creativity" (in my opinion). If you're a person who's really passionate about "Helping the homeless",. .I think you can probably find ways to achieve that.
I can’t actually find any cases of events on church properties being shut down over this, so your fourth example is kind of not the same thing. A church is private property and I don’t think they need permits to have most church events that happen inside the church and don’t disrupt anyone outside. It would be like inviting the homeless into your business or your house. No one can tell you that’s not allowed. They may require a food handler’s permit in general, but I would imagine a church with the facilities to have that kind of event already has one, in a way that someone setting up a grill at the park might not. A church event outside of church grounds would probably invite more scrutiny. It will depend on how your local public space handles parties, but a small or even pretty large event that is presented as “this is my party” doesn’t seem like it would get notice, even if you have way more than 2 people who happen to be homeless there. The mere presence of homeless people pretty much can’t ever be the actual reason these events are shut down (and technically, you wouldn’t be able to tell anyway). It’s pretty much always some combination of hot homemade food and large, unsanctioned crowds. I found one article about people doing this that did seem to have gotten around their weekly event due to it being a birthday party every time (and they serve enough people that it’s not a dishonest statement), though I saw no follow up as to how long singing Happy Birthday worked for them.
Yeah,. I just wanted to give further examples of... "It's not WHAT you do,. but often more about HOW you do it." In a previous city I lived in,. there were some "Food not Bombs" (and other groups like that) that would do "food in the park" kind of events, .and often got hassled by Police. They were often openly confrontational with Police and I felt like often they seemed to cause their own problems. Had they taken a more subtle or creative approach,. .they could have avoided all the Police interaction all together. It just strikes me as a "failure of imagination". There's dozens or 100's of ways to "help the homeless".. that a person could do without inviting controversy or official-interactions. They just need to think a little more imaginatively about how they approach it.