[Purple Haize]

if hobos know they are going to get free meals at the park, they will be at the park. when i take my kids to the park i prefer it to not be inundated with hobos. there are probably plenty of ridiculous ordinances in quite possibly the stupidest most overrated cities in America but this isn't that awful.

There's the biblical compassion I expect out of FlameFans.

So not wanting to feed homeless people in a park is anti Biblical Ill have to look that up

[JK37]

I've yet to hear NAJ or Jbock present a logical argument. All the libertarians are trying to do is claim this is an example of unnecessary government interference. But alas, failure looms. Doh!

[RubberMallet]

if hobos know they are going to get free meals at the park, they will be at the park. when i take my kids to the park i prefer it to not be inundated with hobos. there are probably plenty of ridiculous ordinances in quite possibly the stupidest most overrated cities in America but this isn't that awful.

There's the biblical compassion I expect out of FlameFans.

how many hobo's do you have living in your front yard? yeah thats what i thought.

there's the misinformed position i expect out of notajerry

[jbock13]

[/quote]

I've yet to hear NAJ or Jbock present a logical argument. All the libertarians are trying to do is claim this is an example of unnecessary government interference. But alas, failure looms. Doh!

I thought libertarians were all for government at the local level. Why would you have a problem with elected representatives in Seattle making rules for Seattle residents?

Good question. We do believe in smaller, and properly divided forms of government, however, the city is directly interfering with voluntary commerce between individuals. In other words, the city will fine those who are simply trying to benefit their fellow man. Why is this? Because city leaders would rather have these individuals be a part of their own government institutions, rather than letting people choose to help them, or not.

For example, a city may say, you cannot park a car here, because it obstructs a view of an intersection, or lies in front of someone's driveway. But a city should not be allowed to violate natural rights of its own citizens. This is what Seattle is restricting the right of private charities to do. This is statism.

[Humble_Opinion]

Takami said those wishing to feed the homeless need to coordinate with the Operation: Sack Lunch program, which serves up to 300 people a day at the city's outdoor meal site, located under the I-5 bridge at 6th Avenue and Columbia Street.

By requiring that all food be served at the site, Takami said the city can control the nutritional value of what the homeless eat and can prevent litter from being left behind at parks after meals.

Regardless of what you guys think... this does have elements of government control surrounding it. Controlling the nutritional value of the homeless? They're homeless for crying outloud. Isn't any food better than no food at all? Also - on a moral level - are some of you really trying to equate control over prostitution to control over feeding the homeless?

if hobos know they are going to get free meals at the park, they will be at the park.

The park is where most of the homeless gather during the day, at least in the bigger cities I've visited over the years... I'd be willing to bet that's the reason why Living Bread decided to feed them there. I'd also be willing to bet that the organization cleaned up the park of litter before the cleared the premisis.

[JK37]

I suspect the guidelines exist because events o the past necessities their creation. In a perfect, world they wouldn't be necessary.

This particular occasion seems to be grandstanding by a group acting emotionally in thei response to being told they need to abide by the rules in place. The city seems to clearly leave open the invitation to them to partner with the city's sack lunch program. Why doesn't the group simply partner, or restrict their activities to inside of their facility?

Government has a responsibility to preserve the safety of its citizens. They do so by enforcing these guidelines. Furthermore, they go above and beyond their responsibilities by providing meals to the homeless themselves. The city representative made it clear what the motives were. This isn't anything more than that.

[RubberMallet]

hobo's gather where people are. people go to the park. i see no reason why a city can't try and make a park a park and not a hobo gathering. the nutritional value is just red tape bs to be able to make these rulings. and nutritional value goes much farther than "are they getting proper vitamins" its to make sure that you aren't feeding hobos dog food.

any ordinance period is some form of gvt control.

in regards to libertarianism, morality has no position on voluntary commerce between two individuals. if both feel its moral, who's to say as a libertarian they are wrong. outside obviously of socioeconomic reasons.

if its me, i don't care, but i just don't think this is that big of a deal.

[Humble_Opinion]

The city seems to clearly leave open the invitation to them to partner with the city's sack lunch program. Why doesn't the group simply partner, or restrict their activities to inside of their facility?

I'm guessing they don't want to 'partner' with the city for the very reasons we are discussing now, i.e. government intrusion. What if the group, called Living Bread, is a Christian organization and they use this program as an outreach to the community to share the Word of God? Could you imagine the rules they'd be forced to follow if they 'partnered' with government...? Also, I'm guessing that the reason they wouldn't hold this at their facility is because they go where the homeless gather. Non-believers don't just find their way to church some random day... Believers must go out and pursue them, which may be what this group is doing. This is pure speculation on my part - this group may not be Christians, but if they are I think you can see the reasoning behind their complaints.

Government has a responsibility to preserve the safety of its citizens. They do so by enforcing these guidelines.

Are you saying that the homeless gathering in a park is a threat to others?

Furthermore, they go above and beyond their responsibilities by providing meals to the homeless themselves.

I don't see how it's okay for government to regulate charity on public property. I understand requiring the group to get a license or something like that, but to outright tell them they can't gather in a park, which is funded by tax dollars is ludicrous.

[Yacht Rock]

From my perspective perhaps the city doesn't want the homeless in the park. If that is the case, perhaps they should focus on finding another place for the homeless to gather instead of cutting off the charitable work of another group.

In the end, if one of the homeless folks finds Christ, it's worth it. I don't care what the regulations were.

If Jesus found time to heal people on the sabbath, which was at odds with the religious guidelines at the time, I think it would be in line as a Christian, to do charitable works even if they run afoul of a secular governmental ordinance.

On another note, I don't think these are actual "hobos", unless they park is right next to a train station and they spend much of their time riding the rails.

[lynchburgwildcats]

Are you saying that the homeless gathering in a park is a threat to others?

Can be, there's a reason why a lot of "hobos" end up in prison.

[ALUmnus]

The city owns the parks, they set the rules. I'm sure there are some creative ways around this. How about having a big church picnic, and inviting homeless people to join? There's always a way to do this stuff. Though I think the city should be more concerned with the fact that there are so many homeless than that people are actually trying to feed them.

[Purple Haize]

The city owns the parks, they set the rules. I'm sure there are some creative ways around this. How about having a big church picnic, and inviting homeless people to join? There's always a way to do this stuff. Though I think the city should be more concerned with the fact that there are so many homeless than that people are actually trying to feed them.

JPUSA did this often in Chicago. It was really cool. But I am pretty much enamel red with about everything they did so I could be biased. But where else could you go to church, have a Moody student on one side, a struggling drug addict on the other then have lunch with a CEO and Prostitute. Wasn't into the commune thing but man, those people were awesome.

[ATrain]

Are you saying that the homeless gathering in a park is a threat to others?

Can be, there's a reason why a lot of "hobos" end up in prison.

Mostly drug related, or they do something stupid just to get arrested and put under a roof.

[Yacht Rock]

Though I think the city should be more concerned with the fact that there are so many homeless than that people are actually trying to feed them.

This.

[RubberMallet]

The city owns the parks, they set the rules. I'm sure there are some creative ways around this. How about having a big church picnic, and inviting homeless people to join? There's always a way to do this stuff. Though I think the city should be more concerned with the fact that there are so many homeless than that people are actually trying to feed them.

very correct. it takes some creativity. not whining. many people that work or run service based entities like this are void of any creativity and innovation. at least from my experiences locally. the rule of thought is that if they had any of that, they wouldn't be in that profession.

i'm sure that progressive city loves the homeless. they are the perfect voter that is heavily reliant upon the gvt for anything they can get.

[Yacht Rock]

i'm sure that progressive city loves the homeless. they are the perfect voter that is heavily reliant upon the gvt for anything they can get.

Which is why they likely don't want anyone else helping them. Each time someone does something nice for another person, it makes the bloated government machine a little more irrelevant.

[LUconn]

No, Seattle's government wants to force Seattle residents to use their program. I don't support that, but I don't have a say. Those residents did though. Does this violate the constitution (not rhetorical, I honestly don't know)? If a city wants to elect reps that will control their lives in every constitutional way, let them. Would you like the federal government to intervene?

I've missed your nose looking down at us though.

[Purple Haize]

I believe this is a First Amendment issue, so I do think it is unconstitutional. Obviously though, I generally agree that it is up to the people of Seattle to set the rules they want to live by.

And I definitely do look down my nose at many people here when it comes to their pathetic statist ways. The weakness of these ideas are what has brought this nation down.

How can you look down your nose when I know for a FACT I'm taller than you Not that I'm a statist.