I'm glad this is getting buzz. Cops have been harassing good will workers for ages. I've been chased and threatened by police for giving food/toys/blankets/money to people in need. I once had a cop take the bottle of powerade I had just bought a homeless man and dumped it on the ground before arresting him for vagrancy and telling me I was lucky I wasn't being taken too. In Topeka, we were told that if we wanted to help we should "give your money to the shelter and pay your taxes". Nevermind that the shelter was a nightmare and would throw away anything we gave them that didn't come with receipts. SMH

Wow, bellflower, that is terrible.

Indeed it was Amy. I was furious. I asked the police officer what the difference was between buying that man a powerade and buying it for my cousin (who was sitting in the car). He bellowed something about "it's different" but of course, no concrete reasons were given.

Honestly though, our more dangerous outreach was when we were distributing condoms (and yes, clean syringes, controversial as that might be) at the permanent camps. We were warned by the clinics that we would be facing felony charges if the police ever found out what we were doing. (Highlights included a threat of a "promoting prostitution" charge they threatened one of the doctor's with for giving out large amounts of condoms to women who were "suspected prostitutes" because they were homeless.)

Rotten all the way around. You can blame the assclowns who created whatever law is in play here, but it's probably some generic thing about public nuisances, and they would just blame the cops anyway. I don't know if governments have the institutional authority to instruct police forces "where to look", but clearly police have a good deal of discretion, which makes it all the more shitty that they're doing this. I suspect a faction of the populace is leaning on them to help remove the homeless from public sight - as if they were pigeons or seagulls that will gather wherever bread crumbs are served.

Unfortunately garbage like this does happen, and imo it's getting worse.
Most happens because of adding more and more regulations on everything, but some as an attack on religion. If there are religious based homeless shelters/food kitchens then there is less need for government programs. Simple solution, force religion out of charity.

This is a great opportunity for an actor or actress with a social conscience. Imagine Leo DiCaprio handing out sandwiches with the media present when the police showed up.

"effectively outlaws groups from feeding the homeless in public"

Ah so using public property to feed the homeless? yeah, not getting worked up about that. They have a church, and a kitchen? why not feed the homeless there? they have homes, they can feed the homeless there, too.

I have to wonder: if I were to start feeding the homeless on the sidewalk in front of Amy's home would that make a difference in opinion?

Leo DiCaprio is too busy flying around on his private jet to lecture us on the evils of global climate disruptions to do anything so mundane as feeding the poor.

The homeless are the public too.
Since homeless they are more public than the general population.

My family, and the volleyball team, have homes, responsibilities and other things to do. They will go away after the picnic.

Yes, homeless people do flock to food like pigeons and seagulls. They also do exactly the same things that the pigeons and seagulls do afterwards, with a little more imagination due to their heritage as primates.

There is a reason you do not attract them, whoever you are. Don't be dishonest and imply this is not a burden - or even that you are totally okay with going to the park full of bums seeking a free meal.

Sorry, Amy, I'll fall on the side of those who say this is a burden on others.

The issue isn't "oh my God, how dare they help others.' The issue is that they are creating a public nuisance by doing it in public.

I would not like something like this to be set up outside my business - a business that pays taxes, pays employees, and now has to lose business because the "do-gooders" feel it is their right to impose this on me. How many customers will avoid my store because the homeless have set up camp outside my door while waiting for "free food"?

So, no, they were not arrested for feeding the homeless - that is a blatant lie - they were arrested for creating a situation that has a negative impact on others and their livelihood.

And, it is not surprising that those arrested are playing the "holier than thou" card.

This from the woman who objects when the bar next-door is too loud, or the patrons pee on her fence.

Funny, Charles, when I host my usual Christmas drives and distribute good will packages at MY shop/office, I haven't had any complaints. Also, the beach is not your business, it is a public space. If I have to share the beach with drunk hipsters playing ultimate frisbee and little kids peeing in the ocean then you can turn away and leave the peaceful assembly alone.

P.S. I'm sure it would be SO easy for disabled veterans, people with children and the elderly to schlep all the way to the church. I guess the church could hire vans to transport them to the church, with a police officer following right behind to interrogate them (been there, done that). Nothing like code enforcement coming down to fine you because you're using your facility for an "unapproved usage".

"Yes, homeless people do flock to food like pigeons and seagulls. "

The nerve of those guttersnipes.

By where I used to work - must be 15 years ago - there was a some what similar flap. The feeding area was a parking lot at the edge of the city which was away from most business - especially open ones during the evening when the events where held. The feeding attracted a small minority that caused a lot of problems. As in police had to regularly show up -- usually multiple times if not just stay there. So the city forced them to stop. Lawsuit files and the judge prevents the city from enforcing until the trial can be held. Two separate bars then filed suited that they had forced to close even with much fewer calls for incidents outside but associated with the bar by the city. The same judge had even heard the one case and given the order. So he was in a tough spot. Ultimately the ruling was they had to have a bond and professional security company since they had not tried that but the feeders said it was way too expensive.

Radwaste is spot on his observation of Amy's option on this and the neighborhood bar - or maybe I misunderstand her post. If it is OK for the neighbor bar then this to should be OK or something.

It's a shame commonsense can't be legislated. Feeding the hungry, most of whom probably should be in care (but aren't, widespread deinstitutionalization wasn't a great thing), that's a good thing. Tolerating squatter camps and public defecation, not so much. How about everyone works together and finds a spot where basic needs can be met without unduly disturbing others? Then the homeless can get on with being, well, homeless, volunteers can do their thing, and it would be a lot cheaper for the city to dig a few fucking latrines than send round cops to arrest people. It's a big world. Problem solved.