One of the laws of supply and demand is that if you provide a free service, people take advantage of it. These people have produced an attractive nuisance on public property, that's all. When the homeless are attracted to the park, everyone else is denied use of it by association, not being comfortable with sharing the park with potentially dangerous persons.
No, I don't care if all of them are sweethearts down on their luck - I've just stated why the regular public won't go there, then.
The city or county will be on the hook for any violence or injury which occurs as a result of their permitting this assembly.

Plus, if they keep feeding them they'll just keep on excreting.

Radwaste...are you kidding me? "permitting this assembly"?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Oh, what do you know...it looks like peaceful assembly is perfectly fine in this country. That goes for desirable AND undesirable people. Defend it for one, defend it for all. Good day.

Dangerboy should take a walk w/his significant other on the wild side past the homeless boys at dusk to experience the full thrill of freedom.

Used to go downtown w/my wife back in the day to go dancing. Decided to stop after passing by too many homeless lounging in doorways. Of course that's their right and I simply exercised my right not to be in the presence of parties not totally in their right mind.

Nothing personal other than my desire not experience panhandling, stinky doorways, and the general feeling of 'oops' I don't feel "safe" here.

There's a reason people like well-lit parking lights, and the majority of people supporting the 'rights' of homeless peoples do not have to be around them. So easy to judge and all of that.

The main article at NBC News doesn't cover this aspect of it, but if the Jimenez' want to help the homeless so much, why don't they just serve the food at their house, which is where they make the food in the first place?

Dangerboy...
You don't get out much, do you?

Your challenge fails. State and local governments routinely issue permits for public functions.

From the NBC News article:

But Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood said the Jimenezes had been warned one week earlier to stop their weekly feeding sessions after local residents complained that some homeless people gathering in the park were defecating and urinating on the grounds, and that some were showing up drunk at dawn.

Are there no public restrooms? As far as being drunk at dawn -- then call the police and get the person(s) arrested for public intoxication.

“We've been down there a year, and the police have been around and not one of them has ever said one word,” Chico Jimenez said. “This time, the police said we are creating more homeless people by feeding them in the park, that we are enabling them by giving them one meal in a week. Does that make sense to you? It’s so crazy.”

I'm sure I'm going to quit my job, abandon my house, and move to Florida to eat a home cooked meal on Wednesdays.

This is a bullshit action based on whiners that think they are so much better then the homeless and don't realize they could be there themselves if the government continues on the way it is.

I've been on the road, and I'm coming to this late, but they're using public resources to support their charitable work. That isn't right.

Now, if they were paying a rent to the city/county, that would be one thing. If you thought the cattle rancher in Nevada was in the wrong for letting his cattle graze on lands not his own and lands he wasn't paying rent for, then this is also wrong.

I'm curious, why these fine folks aren't using their home to do this charitable work?