Strict Rules For Feeding The Homeless?

[Mitch Henessey]

Fort Lauderdale police say Arnold Abbott violated a new city law, but the 90-year-old homeless advocate says his only crime was to “love thy neighbor.”

Abbott was charged Sunday along with two local pastors with violating the city’s new ordinance that effectively bans giving out food in public. He faces 60 days in jail and a $500 fine, and he intends to get cited again Wednesday night, when he sets out to feed some of the Florida city’s estimated 10,000 homeless on a public beach.

“I know that I will be arrested again, and I am prepared for that,” Abbott said by phone from his office at Love Thy Neighbor, Inc., a nonprofit he established in honor of his wife, Maureen, after her death in a car accident 23 years ago. “I am my brother’s keeper, and what they are doing is just heartless.”

Fort Lauderdale passed an ordinance late last month that included a slate of new regulations on where and how groups can provide food to homeless people. The vote made the city the 13th in the nation since 2012 to pass restrictions on where people can feed the homeless, according to a report by the National Coalition for the Homeless.

The regulations enacted in Fort Lauderdale state that no two indoor feeding sites can be within 500 feet of one another or on the same block; outdoor feeding programs require a permit or permission of the property owner and must provide portable toilets; and outdoor stations cannot be within 500 feet of residential properties.

Abbott, whose charity has battled city officials for years in court and on the streets of the southern Florida city, said the toilet requirement was too much for his group.

“I have tried to abide by their regulations, but we just are not able to provide a port-a-potty,” he said. “I believe that is the job of the municipality, anyway.”

Cited along with Abbott were Dwayne Black, pastor of The Sanctuary Church in Fort Lauderdale, and Mark Sims of St. Mary Magdalene Episcopal Church in Coral Springs, according to the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. Although the three were not handcuffed or taken to jail, they were cited and must appear in court or face a bench warrant.

Fort Lauderdale officials defended the ordinance, saying it does not bar people from helping the hungry.

"The ordinance allows for legal, clean and safe distribution of food to the homeless," said Fort Lauderdale Police Department Det. DeAnna Greenlaw. "For example, if a minister, priest or member of clergy wishes to provide food to the homeless at their establishment (I.e community hall, church or gathering place) they can do so if the proper facilities, as listed in the ordinance, are in place."

Supporters of the strict laws say that allowing programs like Abbott’s encourages homelessness. Cal Deal, a 65-year-old former journalist who videotapes homeless people in the city and says they commit crimes, cause sanitation problems and need more help than simply food.

"The people feeding them are enablers, and they enable the homeless by making their lives easier," Deal told the New Times of Broward County. "Hunger is a big motivator. Are people more likely to seek help when they're hungry or when they're fed and happy?"

Ron Book, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust, told city lawmakers at the raucous, Oct. 21 meeting at which the new laws were passed that they would have a positive effect.

"Feeding people on the streets is sanctioning homelessness," Book said. "Whatever discourages feeding people on the streets is a positive thing."

Sims acknowledged that Fort Lauderdale has a problem with homelessness, but said the answer isn't laws that make it hard to feed people.

"It's not an easy issue, not cut and dried," Sims said. "But what is cut and dried is that people deserve to eat when they are hungry. And people of faith are compelled to reach out to people who are in need.

"We need to work harder to solve the problem, rather than just shutting it down,” he added.

Abbott said there is a simple explanation for Fort Lauderdale's outsize homeless population.

“The homeless people come here for the weather,” he said. “They know they won’t freeze to death in Fort Lauderdale.”

Abbott, a World War II veteran who won two Purple Hearts as an infantryman, said he won’t stop the fight he has dedicated to his wife.

“She tried to help as many poor and homeless people as she could,” said Abbott, a retired jewelry salesman who grew up in Philadelphia. “When I lost her, I decided the best tribute to her would be a full-time program in her name.”

In addition to feeding the homeless, Love Thy Neighbor operates a culinary training program that Abbott says has helped more than 400 people learn food service skills.

But the food programs have gotten him in trouble for years. In 1999, the city tried to stop Abbott from feeding the homeless on Fort Lauderdale Beach, the same location he plans to go to Wednesday. Abbott sued and won, and says he will go back to court if necessary.

"I’ll go to court again and sue the city," said Abbott. "They are doing the bidding of the very wealthy, and they are trying to sweep the poorest of the poor under the rug.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...d-under-fort-lauderdale-strict-rules-against/

Fort Lauderdale, Florida is not the first city/state in the US to pass restrictions on where and how people can feed the homeless.

Abbott is prepared to fight the city again, and the toilet requirement was the final straw this time around. On one hand, you have a man, who's determined to stay the course.

Yes, Abbott is choosing to challenge the rules, but the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department urges the rules are in place to ensure a safe and clean program for distribution. Although, after reading the opinions from officials and supporters of the law, I found it easier to lean towards Abbott's side.

When I read Abbott's side of the story, I get the impression he's someone, who's willing to go out of his way to do the right thing, and face the consequences. On the other side, Book and Deal believe a tough love approach is the appropriate solution to the problem. Abbott is an enabler, and feeding the homeless handouts adds to a growing problem.

Of course, the kicker to this story is, this is not Abbott's first (going back to 1999) run in with the law for his program. He's prepared to fight, and you could say Abbott refusing the toilet requirement is a sign of unnecessary stubbornness.

With all that said, you get the impression Abbott is a just guy, who's trying to help out. Sure, you can say Abbott could go the extra mile to obey the toilet requirement, and I know I'm jumping into conspiracy theory mode here, but what's going to happen, if the City Of Fort Lauderdale decides to add another requirement to complicate the situation?

All thoughts and discussion regarding this article are welcome.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Abbott said there is a simple explanation for Fort Lauderdale's outsize homeless population.

“The homeless people come here for the weather,” he said. “They know they won’t freeze to death in Fort Lauderdale.”

Replying to topics like this is hard because if you were in a courtroom, trying to uphold the rules as ordained by a city/town, you can practically hear an attorney saying to the jury, dramatically: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, she doesn't care about the homeless!"

...and the jury recoiling with horror, gasping behind their hands and shielding their faces from this uncaring monster.

The problem is, many folks agree with what the city has enacted but, in public, they have to show themselves to be caring, sympathetic people....sensitive to the plight of the folks in need. In private, they avoid the homeless entirely, secure in the knowledge that someone else is taking care of them. They might think: "I love the homeless.....just keep them away from me."

In the past, people who needed feeding used to be called bums, hobos, tramps, vagrants......and many other things, none of which were flattering.

Today, we've romanticized it for the PC era: now, they're the homeless, a rather wistful term that conjures up valiant people who are trying their hardest to succeed but have failed due to circumstances not of their own making.

For many of them, that's undoubtedly how it is. Problem is, lots of them are homeless because they've stopped trying, or never tried in the first place....and are delighted to take advantage of the services offered by Mr. Abbott and his crew. In fact, if allowed, they'll never stop taking advantage of it because it's the easiest path for them to follow. The ever-expanding line of "homeless" who gather in vicinities that aren't approved for this type of activity will make it harder for folks who have business in that location to function.

Ever been in Grand Central Station in New York? In the 80's.....for a short time....the police were instructed to allow the homeless to gather in the cavernous structure to get out of the cold for awhile. Not surprisingly, they came in droves....and stayed. Back then, I was just a kid but I recall that the sheer number of poorly turned-out people were scaring the hell out of me as my parents tried to navigate me through the horde, with many, many desperate people grabbing at our clothes and asking for money. The place was permanently jam-packed; you couldn't walk five feet without being approached. With in a few months, even with the hand-wringing from homeless advocates, the police were ordered to clear the station of people who "looked as if they had no business there".....and Grand Central went back to being what it was intended to be; a way station for train commuters.

In other words, as much as we're supposed to ache for the plight of the homeless, the rest of the people have a right to go about their business unencumbered, no? That's what was decided.

Strict rules for feeding the homeless? Sure. As long as the city/town agrees to provide ways to do it, it can be done, notwithstanding the efforts of good folks like Mr. Abbott to do as he pleases, using the cloak of goodness and charity to shield activities deemed unlawful.

CAVEAT: If he's trying to change the city ordinances through the appropriate system, that's fine.... but ignoring and breaking the rules because he feels justified in doing it his way.....is not.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

"Hunger is a big motivator. Are people more likely to seek help when they're hungry or when they're fed and happy?"

First thing I'm going to say is who the fuck is happy living on the streets? I really don't think starving some bums is going to somehow enable them to find a job and a place to live (besides, hiring bums isn't necessarily something most business owners will do) and I don't think giving them some food will make street living seem more glamorous. Quite frankly if I lived on the street I could be getting fed every night and it wouldn't change a thing in how I feel living on the streets, I would still hate it and I would still do what I could to get a roof over my head.

I get Abbott broke the law, I get he's a stubborn old man but this is a stupid reason to charge the guy even if it is the law. If the guy wants to help out a few hobo's I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so. I don't think it contributes to the hobo problem at all, I just don't buy getting a few sandwiches will somehow make a person more accepting of being homeless, if anything after getting to eat something decent I would try harder to make sure I could get decent food EVERYDAY instead of just waiting for the sandwich man to take care of me.

Even though I think the law is incredibly dumb Abbott could make his life a lot easier going about his cause in a different way. There is no law in saying Abbott can't feed the homeless, he just can't do it in public. The fact is it wouldn't be that hard for him to change his setup just a bit so he can keep feeding the homeless as he wants while still following the laws of the city. Sure they maybe laws you don't agree with but sometimes its just easier in the long run to go with the flow. I don't want to do the dishes every night I don't put my kid to bed but I would much rather take the 15 minutes to help out and get it done, its something small I would rather not do but it makes my life a whole lot easier when I do it so who cares? Same idea with Abbott, setting something up in his house or renting out a place from time to time wouldn't be that difficult but if he did it then he could do what he wants without the city getting on his back about it. Frankly going the route Abbott has taken will be a lot more stressful and harder on him then it would simply going through the proper channels.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

First thing I'm going to say is who the fuck is happy living on the streets? I really don't think starving some bums is going to somehow enable them to find a job and a place to live (besides, hiring bums isn't necessarily something most business owners will do) and I don't think giving them some food will make street living seem more glamorous. Quite frankly if I lived on the street I could be getting fed every night and it wouldn't change a thing in how I feel living on the streets, I would still hate it and I would still do what I could to get a roof over my head.

I get Abbott broke the law, I get he's a stubborn old man but this is a stupid reason to charge the guy even if it is the law. If the guy wants to help out a few hobo's I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so. I don't think it contributes to the hobo problem at all, I just don't buy getting a few sandwiches will somehow make a person more accepting of being homeless, if anything after getting to eat something decent I would try harder to make sure I could get decent food EVERYDAY instead of just waiting for the sandwich man to take care of me.

Even though I think the law is incredibly dumb Abbott could make his life a lot easier going about his cause in a different way. There is no law in saying Abbott can't feed the homeless, he just can't do it in public. The fact is it wouldn't be that hard for him to change his setup just a bit so he can keep feeding the homeless as he wants while still following the laws of the city. Sure they maybe laws you don't agree with but sometimes its just easier in the long run to go with the flow. I don't want to do the dishes every night I don't put my kid to bed but I would much rather take the 15 minutes to help out and get it done, its something small I would rather not do but it makes my life a whole lot easier when I do it so who cares? Same idea with Abbott, setting something up in his house or renting out a place from time to time wouldn't be that difficult but if he did it then he could do what he wants without the city getting on his back about it. Frankly going the route Abbott has taken will be a lot more stressful and harder on him then it would simply going through the proper channels.

On the surface, it's easy to see how anyone in his or her right mind would hate living out on the streets. At the same time, however, it's also something of a lifestyle that was romanticized to a certain degree in decades past. If you've ever heard any of the old music, especially country music or folk music, from the late 19th century all the way up through the 60s & 70s, a lot of songs try to make it sound like it's a great life. In the late 19th century and on up through the Great Depression, there were all these different terms for homeless people. If you were a wandering worker or just a homeless wanderer, you were a Hobo. If you were somebody who only worked whenever you were forced to for whatever reason, you were a tramp. If you were someone who just wouldn't work period, they called you a good ol' fashioned bum. You saw these sorts of people portrayed in cartoons & movies back in the 30s and 40s, often in comedic settings, and people were having themselves a good time. Ever hear the old Roger Miller song "King of the Road?" It's a song about a traveling Hobo who rides the rails.

Like Sally pointed out, a lot of people all want to say or do the politically correct thing in public but, when it's all said & done, most people view the homeless as dirty and/or scary people that they'd rather have as little to do with as possible. A lot of people also feel extremely guilty when they encounter a homeless person, I figure it's something akin to soldiers that have Survivor's Guilt, only not remotely so traumatic and debilitating.

There have always been people willing to take advantage of the generosity of others and the various services provided to them at no cost. There always will be people like that, it's just an opportunistic element of human nature. At the same time, for those people who're genuinely the victims of mental illness and/or physical disability who wind up on the streets, they're the ones who've fallen through the cracks. The homeless are the most visible example that the system doesn't always work and probably can't always work.

As far as Arnold Abbott goes, I have to applaud his dedication and selflessness. At age 90, you'd think he'd be a withered husk, a physically and/or mentally ailing shell of a man, but he has his cause. This is something that I think is worthy of discussion and massive news coverage instead of the usual bullshit of celebrity scandals, corrupt politicians. People like Abbott are the ones you almost never hear about unless it's by accident and there are a LOT of them in the world.