I'm split on this one. I can understand the city's point of view but it still seems a bit cold and my hats off to this couple for doing a good thing.

Florida Couple Fined, Threatened with Jail for Feeding Homeless - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-couple-fined-threatened-jail-feeding-homeless-n103786)

That's dumb. Something cam be worked out. If the homeless per people are acting fools by getting drunk and excreteing waste, then that is their problem and should be punished accordingly, but for the good ones and to the people feeding them, what is the hell is the problem? Sounds exactly like people just wanting to control others.

I'm a bit split on this too - however, as I read the article I fall more in favor of the city (in general).

If the volunteers were warned not to continue their public feedings then the city should have formally warned them with something in writing that the volunteers signed. Without that I really don't know who to believe.

Regardless, anyone who can't see the problem with letting people form food pantries just anywhere they want is living in a fantasy hippie land. And I say this as someone who volunteered to feed the homeless once or twice a week FOR YEARS in downtown OKC. But this was done on private property and indoors (Downtown Baptist Mission and REST Homeless Day Shelter).

Do I think some cities take their restriction too far? Certainly. But I also think some individuals and groups take their perceived rights too far when it comes to these activities.

I applaud these individuals if they truly want to fight the city on this issue - but they best be prepared to face the consequences that often come with poking the bear.

Creating a food pantry wherever they want. How Amy do. You see around? These are one people dog this and I am confident, something could be worked out if needed. If they ha e a yard, why not do it for them in their own backyard? Surely they trust the purple they're feeding, eh?

Creating a food pantry wherever they want. How Amy do. You see around? These are one people dog this and I am confident, something could be worked out if needed. If they ha e a yard, why not do it for them in their own backyard? Surely they trust the purple they're feeding, eh?

Obviously the couple isn't concerned with 'working it out' or they would have checked local ordinances in advance. I volunteer with lots of groups (large and small) and the 1st order of business is finding out what the rules are and deciding if we can play by them.

Just because you have private property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on it - to include setting up a food pantry.

As for how many are around? Cant speak for that area, but OKC has tons of them! Literally dozens in the metro and surrounding areas. There is ZERO reason for a homeless individual or family to claim they will starve in the OKC area unless they simply choose to. Just the referral list at the Christian Service Center is huge. Not to mention the list utilized by Heartline.

Creating a food pantry wherever they want. How Amy do. You see around? These are one people dog this and I am confident, something could be worked out if needed. If they ha e a yard, why not do it for them in their own backyard? Surely they trust the purple they're feeding, eh?
Are you speaking/writing a new dialect of English that I'm unfamiliar with?

On my phone typing, sorry

There are signs up all over state and federal parks telling people to not feed the wildlife because they end up suffering when the tourists leave and they've lost their ability to successfully forage as a direct result of being fed. I don't see it as an insult to compare people to wild animals, btw.

A concern I have is that many homeless are mentally ill, often preyed upon by others. Feeding them encourages them to stay on the street making it more likely that they will be victimized by predators, left out in the elements and not receive appropriate medical treatment. They are in far more danger of becoming victims of street crime than they are of starving, and feeding them sets them up. Better to work with organizations with more comprehensive services, IMO.

We have an ordinance that says when people want to perform acts of kindness or charity that they must coordinate with our local social service agencies

You got to love Florida. Kindness is well regulated and guns aren't. A misanthrope's wet dream.

Just because you have private property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on it - to include setting up a food pantry.

As for how many are around? Cant speak for that area, but OKC has tons of them! Literally dozens in the metro and surrounding areas. There is ZERO reason for a homeless individual or family to claim they will starve in the OKC area unless they simply choose to. Just the referral list at the Christian Service Center is huge. Not to mention the list utilized by Heartline.

Hard for me to grasp that a state (where more than 25% of the children are hungry) ranked the 6th most obese in the country, has tons of Food Pantries? It just doesn't make sense with all this food around that anyone should go to bed hungry...especially in Oklahoma (City).

Hard for me to grasp that a state (where more than 25% of the children are hungry) ranked the 6th most obese in the country, has tons of Food Pantries? It just doesn't make sense with all this food around that anyone should go to bed hungry...especially in Oklahoma (City).

I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons, excuses, etc.

The sad fact is we give out food stamp cards and free food at pantries at an alarming rate. If your kid goes to bed hungry on a regular basis then its the parents that are to blame. Free food is in abundance in this city.

There are signs up all over state and federal parks telling people to not feed the wildlife because they end up suffering when the tourists leave and they've lost their ability to successfully forage as a direct result of being fed. I don't see it as an insult to compare people to wild animals, btw.

A concern I have is that many homeless are mentally ill, often preyed upon by others. Feeding them encourages them to stay on the street making it more likely that they will be victimized by predators, left out in the elements and not receive appropriate medical treatment. They are in far more danger of becoming victims of street crime than they are of starving, and feeding them sets them up. Better to work with organizations with more comprehensive services, IMO.

Are you equating homeless people with wildlife? Many homeless do have mental illness but a great many do not and do you think it would be kinder to let mentally ill homeless starve? Where do you suggest they get all the things you say they need? Are they not going to be homeless anymore if you stop feeding them or will they just be hungry homeless people? Your compassion is astounding.

Hard for me to grasp that a state (where more than 25% of the children are hungry) ranked the 6th most obese in the country,

Fat kids are often hungry. That's why they're fat.

I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons, excuses, etc.

The sad fact is we give out food stamp cards and free food at pantries at an alarming rate. If your kid goes to bed hungry on a regular basis then its the parents that are to blame. Free food is in abundance in this city.

This is the reason I oppose generic welfare absent intelligent reform - we frequently subsidize crappy parenting and trap kids in poverty and awful schools and neighborhoods.

This is the reason I oppose generic welfare absent intelligent reform - we frequently subsidize crappy parenting and trap kids in poverty and awful schools and neighborhoods.

What do you suggest as a solution?

What do you suggest as a solution?

Different welfare tracks is a possibility with different criteria, payouts and standards. Of course, the devil is in the details. Right now, we have a one sized fits all that purports to be more efficient because people needing welfare have an array of choices and it is left up to them to select them. But that hides a multitude of sins, IMO, because someone seriously wanting job training or who is disabled and needs assistance is simply not in the same boat as someone just living their lives the way their mama and grandma did and raising their kids the same way.

In our understandable desire to make sure that someone trying to get a hand up isn't penalized, we are allowing dysfunctional uses of the welfare system to flourish. Welfare fraud is rampant but we have no realistic way of policing it. Tailoring uses/benefits, by statute or regulation would help, and if someone decided to choose a different track they should be able to. But I would rather someone come right out and say, I want welfare assistance because I have no intention of getting a job or an education. At that point, I think we should be able to say, fine - but here's the limit on what we will pay for additional children and unless you want to get on a track to get out of poverty, this is all there is. Call us when you are serious about job training or working and we'll switch you over. Oh, and if you can't afford to feed the kids you had once you went on welfare and aren't willing to get a job or training, we'll find them a new home and you can go on your merry way. And I would put serious penalties on welfare families whose children are chronically truant. We have to break the cycle if we want change and policy should be in place to encourage ways out of poverty - not simply give money to people willing to live a sustenance lifestyle and force their kids to settle for that, too.

Different welfare tracks is a possibility with different criteria, payouts and standards. Of course, the devil is in the details. Right now, we have a one sized fits all that purports to be more efficient because people needing welfare have an array of choices and it is left up to them to select them. But that hides a multitude of sins, IMO, because someone seriously wanting job training or who is disabled and needs assistance is simply not in the same boat as someone just living their lives the way their mama and grandma did and raising their kids the same way.

In our understandable desire to make sure that someone trying to get a hand up isn't penalized, we are allowing dysfunctional uses of the welfare system to flourish. Welfare fraud is rampant but we have no realistic way of policing it. Tailoring uses/benefits, by statute or regulation would help, and if someone decided to choose a different track they should be able to. But I would rather someone come right out and say, I want welfare assistance because I have no intention of getting a job or an education. At that point, I think we should be able to say, fine - but here's the limit on what we will pay for additional children and unless you want to get on a track to get out of poverty, this is all there is. Call us when you are serious about job training or working and we'll switch you over. Oh, and if you can't afford to feed the kids you had once you went on welfare and aren't willing to get a job or training, we'll find them a new home and you can go on your merry way. And I would put serious penalties on welfare families whose children are chronically truant. We have to break the cycle if we want change and policy should be in place to encourage ways out of poverty - not simply give money to people willing to live a sustenance lifestyle and force their kids to settle for that, too.


So your solution is to take the kids away if the parents can't afford to feed them? What about families who's kids aren't on welfare and have truancy problems? Just flog them but no serious penalties? How much of the welfare fraud is done by doctors and such?

I think we agree on many of the same problems with the welfare system. It appears, to me, that many conservatives aren't willing to pay for contraceptives for the poor nor are they willing to pay more for additional kids and they are dead set against any type of abortion. I'm for paying for contraceptives and no additional money for having more kids. I agree with the job training or school and also think child care should be offered when going through the training or classes. If you want to stop a lot of welfare fraud start at the ones making millions off it and not the ones making $320 a month to feed their family. Unfortunately it's become too easy for people who have a nice home, good education and good job to look down on the poor. I do agree reforms need to be made but lets make them ones that work and not ones that punish people for being poor.

So your solution is to take the kids away if the parents can't afford to feed them? What about families who's kids aren't on welfare and have truancy problems? Just flog them but no serious penalties? How much of the welfare fraud is done by doctors and such?

I think we agree on many of the same problems with the welfare system. It appears, to me, that many conservatives aren't willing to pay for contraceptives for the poor nor are they willing to pay more for additional kids and they are dead set against any type of abortion. I'm for paying for contraceptives and no additional money for having more kids. I agree with the job training or school and also think child care should be offered when going through the training or classes. If you want to stop a lot of welfare fraud start at the ones making millions off it and not the ones making $320 a month to feed their family. Unfortunately it's become too easy for people who have a nice home, good education and good job to look down on the poor. I do agree reforms need to be made but lets make them ones that work and not ones that punish people for being poor.
If you want to blame conservatives for this, go for it. For me, this isn't political or ideological. It just comes down to what are the best policies to achieve the results we SAY we want. As for taking kids away from parents who can't afford them - after a reasonable time to accept help offered? Yeah, you bet. I want no part in subsidizing people uninterested in doing whatever they can to give their kids a decent shot. If I don't want my kids forced to go to a horrible school, I want no part in handing their parents money with a wink, wink - that doesn't give me a good night's sleep. It makes me feel culpable. In case you don't know, it is common for kids to go back to their foster parents to thank them for giving them a chance. We rob them of that chance by handing deadbeat parents enough money to claim their kids are cared for. And I've had kids tell me, later, that they wish I'd pushed for foster care even if they wouldn't ask for it.