Current Events > Gotta go to city hall to protest an anti-homeless ordinance tonight

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/may/14/lr-plan-seeks-to-limit-feeding-poor-in-/

"One concern is we did have issues with feedings in the Julius Breckling [Riverfront Park downtown.] That ended when they started building the bridge, but they're about to finish with that," Carpenter told board members at a meeting Tuesday. "We had complaints with businesses, particularly in the River Market area. So we wanted to get a proposal in place that says, 'Look, you can feed, you can use parks to feed, but you can't feed every day in the same park.'"

...

"Part of our perspective is going to be that people are looking at this as a way of solving a problem, which we don't necessarily see as a problem," said Fred Ball, pastor at San Damiano Ecumenical Catholic Church and co-chairman of the Arkansas Homeless Coalition. "My assumption is it targets feeding the homeless because nobody complains about feeding church groups or schoolchildren. We really have to find a way to address the problem of people being uncomfortable with those who are different."

At-large City Director Joan Adcock met with the coalition Wednesday and said she had concerns about the ordinance. In addition to affecting the homeless, it could affect summer and after-school feeding programs for children, she said.

The ordinance says certain parks, in particular the sculpture garden in Riverfront Park, "are not conducive to conducting large group feeding events due to the number of participants, limited available space and the potential for damage to occur."

The $500 security deposit that would be required before the city issues a permit for a "large feeding," is meant to cover the cost of repairing any damage to the park area and its furnishings. The deposit would be refundable.

The required $25 application fee per feeding would not be refundable. The ordinance would require notice of at least 30 days, but no more than 90 days. It would require the person applying for the permit to list any organization he is affiliated with and provide a letter from that organization.

That group could not be issued a permit more than twice in 12 months for a feeding at the same location.

Carpenter said he modeled the ordinance after one in Orlando, Fla., that was upheld by appellate courts.
---

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 14:31
---

DevsBro posted...

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 14:31

what if you are atheist though?
---

It's still true.
---

If people want to run a soup kitchen, they can do it inside, preferably far away from any business districts.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

DevsBro posted...

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 14:31

what if you are atheist though?

no one is atheist in arkansas silly

Frostshock posted...

If people want to run a soup kitchen, they can do it inside, preferably far away from any business districts.

or they can do it in the public park
---

Frostshock posted...

If people want to run a soup kitchen, they can do it inside, preferably far away from any business districts.

Agreed. No reason to do it out in the open except to virtue signal to others about how good of a person you are for feeding the homeless one day out of 365, imo.

Clad posted...

Agreed. No reason to do it out in the open except to virtue signal to others about how good of a person you are for feeding the homeless one day out of 365, imo.

maybe they do it in places where homeless people are instead of expecting them to potentially walk across the city for a meal
---

I think the general idea is that if you feed the homeless at the same location every day, that's where the homeless will stay all the time. For the businesses operating around that area they are a huge nuisance, and it also becomes impossible to properly maintain those parks, which eventually makes them unusable to everyone else.
---

eston posted...

I think the general idea is that if you feed the homeless at the same location every day, that's where the homeless will stay all the time. For the businesses operating around that area they are a huge nuisance, and it also becomes impossible to properly maintain those parks, which eventually makes them unusable to everyone else.

Exactly. Anyone who has lived in a major city or in an area with a lot of homeless people (like southern LA) understand this. Whereas other people are just looking to virtue signal about how much they're helping the homeless by feeding them in a public park rather than in a soup kitchen or homeless shelter.

eston posted...

I think the general idea is that if you feed the homeless at the same location every day, that's where the homeless will stay all the time. For the businesses operating around that area they are a huge nuisance, and it also becomes impossible to properly maintain those parks, which eventually makes them unusable to everyone else.

that's a stupid way of thinking

homeless people congregate downtown because that's where people are

Clad posted...

Exactly. Anyone who has lived in a major city or in an area with a lot of homeless people (like southern LA) understand this.

LA is dumb as hell about their homeless problem, too.

Also, I live downtown and I pass homeless people every single day.
---

Proudclad is just upset at how much the homeless pay in taxes. I mean, if we lowered them, they would have money to save AND they'd get their UBI check! Win-win!
---

If you pass homeless people every single day, how is it that you can't see the problem with making public parks the designated parking area for homeless people? It sounds good on paper for anyone who wants to virtue signal, but it makes no sense in reality. The parks would deteriorate and become more violent. No one would be able to use them.

If the goal is to feed homeless people, you can do it via soup kitchens and homeless shelters much more effectively for both the homeless people and the people who are trying to enjoy public facilities.

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Proudclad is just upset at how much the homeless pay in taxes.

interesting

I didn't know that was prodclod

it is almost certainly true that the homeless pay a larger share of their income in taxes to Little Rock than property owners do, though

especially if they're stereotypical and use their panhandling money to buy beer! sales tax AND an excise tax!
---

Are you really taking sktgamer's shitpost seriously.

Clad posted...

If you pass homeless people every single day, how is it that you can't see the problem with making public parks the designated parking area for homeless people?

I'm not stupid enough to think that regularly feeding homeless people in public is going to make them live in the park. Because I actually interact with homeless people.


Clad posted...

It sounds good on paper for anyone who wants to virtue signal, but it makes no sense in reality. The parks would deteriorate and become more violent. No one would be able to use them.

it's been working just fine for years - the people complaining are a small group of businesses in one area of downtown, who got used to the park being vacated during construction on the nearby bridge. why are you so okay with them dictating city-wide policies just to "protect" their businesses (which arguably aren't even suffering due to the presence of homeless people)?

The parks haven't deteriorated or become more violent. There's been a lot of violence in Little Rock, but not frmo homeless people in parks.

Clad posted...

If the goal is to feed homeless people, you can do it via soup kitchens and homeless shelters much more effectively for both the homeless people and the people who are trying to enjoy public facilities.

the homeless are also people trying to enjoy public facilities

and like I already said

maybe they do it in places where homeless people are instead of expecting them to potentially walk across the city for a meal

---

Filthy poor and homeless need to go to the lower district where they belong.
---

In downtown Chicago, homeless people stick to certain areas where they know they'll get money or food. If that happened more frequently at a park, they'd hang around the park. And it'd make sense for them to do so - closer to food is closer to survival.

You can't walk through Chicago without being asked for change or food multiple times. It's the same with where I lived in LA, except in LA there's actually more risk of violence from homeless people because of the warmer weather.

There's a difference between homeless people enjoying the public facilities and homeless people parking at the public facilities to the point where it affects other people's enjoyment of the public facilities, or the businesses in the area.

Why aren't more efficient homeless shelters and soup kitchens the better strategy? Is it because you can't virtue signal about feel-good mantras regarding public facilities? Listen, politicians don't care about homeless people. They just use them to virtue signal and to posture. That's all that's happening in this topic, too.

HypnoCoosh posted...

Filthy poor and homeless need to go to the lower district where they belong.

yeah that is pretty much literally what this ordinance is trying to do

our sculpture garden has the poors eating in it!
---

Clad posted...

In downtown Chicago, homeless people stick to certain areas where they know they'll get money or food. If that happened more frequently at a park, they'd hang around the park. And it'd make sense for them to do so - closer to food is closer to survival.

yeah, and the reason they're in downtown is because that's where people is, like I also said

even if you do a daily feeding at the park, it's not going to cause homeless people to relocate from their regular sources of income and food (i.e., people). you're putting the cart before the horse, the reason they're using the park is that there are already homeless people around.

Clad posted...

You can't walk through Chicago without being asked for change or food multiple times. It's the same with where I lived in LA, except in LA there's actually more risk of violence from homeless people because of the warmer weather.

There's a difference between homeless people enjoying the public facilities and homeless people parking at the public facilities to the point where it affects other people's enjoyment of the public facilities, or the businesses in the area.

so let those businesses prove it interrupts some vital business function. but that other part doesn't make sense, I don't like people playing frisbee golf but they can still do it. it's a public recreational space, if someone is bothering you then go some where private.

Clad posted...

Why aren't more efficient homeless shelters and soup kitchens the better strategy? Is it because you can't virtue signal about feel-good mantras regarding public facilities?

Because assembling capital for land acquisition is more expensive than throwing a grill in your van. Little Rock is not densely populated so, while there are already a ton of churches and places like our house and salvation army, there is a severe lack of financial resources to cover all of our homeless population every where in the city. so advocates for the homeless have adapted to more mobile strategies -- for instance, this place: https://www.facebook.com/ItsTheVan/

Clad posted...

Listen, politicians don't care about homeless people. They just use them to virtue signal and to posture. That's all that's happening in this topic, too.

just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm virtue signalling. Just like you disagreeing with me doesn't necessarily make you a shill or stupid.
---

You don't see the difference between someone playing frisbee in the public park, and a bunch of people parking and sleeping in the public park?

You don't think that if people knew X park or Y park had free food every day, they'd migrate and hang around that park? Maybe your city is not dense enough for that to happen, but it'd happen in downtown Chicago.

It seems reasonable to me that businesses want to be able to sell and people want to be able to use the park. It also seems reasonable to me that soup kitchens and homeless shelters take on the responsibilities mentioned. If someone wants to use a public park to feed homeless people, are they planning on doing it every single day? Are they planning on doing it all day long to make sure they feed everyone? Are they going to use every park in that way to get to all the homeless people throughout the city? How are they going to control the waste? What about any violence or drugs?

The logistics are insane, and that's what makes this entire thing feel more like virtue signaling than actually wanting to feed homeless people. Are you going to deny that certain politicians love saying positive feel-good things about homelessness and the poor, just as a way to maintaining a reputation without expending any real effort?

Is virtue signaling gonna be the new thing on the list of buzzwords?
---

DevsBro posted...

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 14:31

The majority of republicans show contempt for their maker then. :o Ironic considering the evangelicals.

Clad posted...

You don't see the difference between someone playing frisbee in the public park, and a bunch of people parking and sleeping in the public park?

this doesn't prevent any one from sleeping in the park, which is already illegal

no, I don't see a difference between a group of people eating together and a group of people playing together

Clad posted...

You don't think that if people knew X park or Y park had free food every day, they'd migrate and hang around that park? Maybe your city is not dense enough for that to happen, but it'd happen in downtown Chicago.

It seems reasonable to me that businesses want to be able to sell and people want to be able to use the park. It also seems reasonable to me that soup kitchens and homeless shelters take on the responsibilities mentioned. If someone wants to use a public park to feed homeless people, are they planning on doing it every single day? Are they planning on doing it all day long to make sure they feed everyone? Are they going to use every park in that way to get to all the homeless people throughout the city? How are they going to control the waste? What about any violence or drugs?

It might happen. But the homeless people are already present downtown, and they don't have any less of a right to be around than those businesses do. Like I said, prove to me some kind of downturn in business activity and I'll listen to that argument. But that isn't the case.

Clad posted...

The logistics are insane, and that's what makes this entire thing feel more like virtue signaling than actually wanting to feed homeless people. Are you going to deny that certain politicians love saying positive feel-good things about homelessness and the poor, just as a way to maintaining a reputation without expending any real effort?

The logistics aren't insane. It just takes a dude with a church van and some food. You asking system-wide questions over what these people are going to do isn't instructive -- if there were enough resources to where all 50 parks were being covered every day by mobile groups feeding the homeless there would obviously be enough resources to muster something more efficient. But the current case is that all of the homeless shelters are full up (or don't accept men) and there isn't enough to keep up with demand. No one is saying this is the best way to do things, but it works and it doesn't cost a lot of money to do.

And politicians do love saying nice stuff, but I'm not sure why you're talking about it here. This ordinance is something initiated by the city manager and approved by the mayor. They're politicians aren't they?
---

This is how the homeless population are where I live.

People have money here, so naturally they beg. There are two strategically located missions for them. That's where they sleep and eat. They walk up the street to "work," which means to beg.

They hold up traffic because people stop to give them money. Sometimes they try to stare into your car, which makes people uncomfortable. They must be making $20-30/hr of tax free cash. I'm very sorry, but when $1000 is the lowest estimate for a one person apartment, we deserve better than to see slumped over bums all over town.
---

The majority of republicans show contempt for their maker then. :o Ironic considering the evangelicals.

I know bait when I see it. But it's true that lots of people are either hypocrites or ignorant. No surprise there whatsoever.
---

Are the homeless shelters also downtown? If they are, nothing changes in regards to where the homeless people end up congregating, assuming that reasoning of them staying where the food is, is correct.
---

emblem boy posted...

Are the homeless shelters also downtown? If they are, nothing changes in regards to where the homeless people end up congregating, assuming that reasoning of them staying where the food is, is correct.

eh

the shelters themselves aren't necessarily, but most homeless shelters are for families and most homeless people are single men. The places that serve them (like Salvation Army, and even they recently cut back on that) are located downtown.

But it really is because a lot of these institutions just don't accept the bulk of the homeless population. The scarce resources are dedicated to women and children, and men are left to fend for themselves.
---

the right wing is saying it violates our religious freedom law btw

http://www.thearkansasproject.com/wanna-feed-homeless-pay-little-rock-says/

The city’s proposal is not only idiotic, but possibly illegal — under Arkansas’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed in 2015. Under RFRA, a law can’t “substantially burden a person’s right to exercise of religion, even if the substantial burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the law is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

State Rep. Bob Ballinger, the lead sponsor of the RFRA law passed in 2015, said the proposed Little Rock ordinance would burden groups who feed the poor as a way of practicing their faith. Ballinger said:

Most of the widespread world religions have some sort of teaching of help the helpless. It would violate those persons’ ability to practice it even though it’s neutrally applied. I think the city could argue there is a compelling governmental interest to provide for safety in the parks. I think the court would say, ‘You may have a compelling governmental reason but this is not the least restrictive way possible…you need to find a less restrictive way of carrying out the purpose you’re trying to achieve.’

Let’s hope the Board of Directors doesn’t rubber-stamp this proposal into law tomorrow night — and that it finds more pressing issues to solve than people feeding the poor without a permit.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

DevsBro posted...

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 14:31

what if you are atheist though?

Most of the people that are fucking over the poor like this are Christian, or at least Supply Side Jesus(tm) worshippers.
---

Schwarber posted...

Is virtue signaling gonna be the new thing on the list of buzzwords?

It already is. Conservative posters tend to love memeing the same things.

update: https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/05/16/changes-reported-in-homeless-feeding-ordinance

The original ordinance set a $25 permit fee for free feeds for groups of more than 25 and limited organizations to two meal events per park per year.

This afternoon, a city staffer said the refundable deposit would be reduced from $500 to $100 and the meal limit would be increased from two to six.

I don't think these changes will satisfy homeless advocates, who've argued that efforts to limit outreach to the homeless are unconstitutional. Broadway Bridge construction stopped a regular weekly feeding program near Riverfront Park that soon could be resumed unless the ordinance is adopted.

The ordinance is on the City Board meeting today for a first reading, but City Manager Bruce Moore has said it won't come to a vote today.

The ACLU has threatened to sue if the city goes ahead with a plan to limit feeding of the homeless.

Aaron Reddin, founder of The One, a homeless outreach, said the ordinance remains unacceptable to him with the changes. Fred Ball, another leader of homeless efforts, also said it changed nothing for him. And he disputed the city employee's representation that homeless groups hadn't responded to an invitation to collaborate.
---