Feeding homeless people is a bad thing, apparently
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/05/fort-lauderdale-cracks-down-on-feeding-homeless-in-public-arrests-90-year-old-man/


So apparently homeless people aren't allowed to be fed in certain parts of the city due to aesthetic reasons. Nice to know the Mayor is more concerned about how nice his city looks than the people living in it :nope:

Only about 40-45% are Veterans, I'm glad the VA is here to help me out.

I got a broken link.

Link not working and sounds something like a story previously posted....but could be wrong.

Don't think this one has been up before Jim.

Here's a working link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-homeless.html

there' was a similar thread before, I remember it too.
And also similar circumstances surrounding the arrest :hmmm:

I reckon your both correct...wasn't the previous thread about a married couple feeding vagrants in a park area and the local authorities objected on grounds something like 'lowering the standards of the area and not in keeping with the intended recreational purpose of the park'?

You are correct. The local authorities were bent out of shape because the homeless folk were defecating in the bushes during the feeding frenzies.
IIRC it was in Florida. I can't say as I blame them for not using the facilities in the park. Those are usually claimed by the eccentric folk.
And it was upsetting the dogs.

Yep, that was the one :yep:

Much like "Do not feed the bears" sign.

"Please don't feed the bears, they will learn to depend on you and stop fending for themselves."

It would serve them right...
 

If the law dogs caused a stampede and got trampled by the herd.:hmmm:


Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

But, alas, the game warden will show up and ask for a fishing license.:-?

It's the homeless peoples fault for being homeless, if they didn't want to be homeless they would not be homeless and therefore they obviously want to be homeless. :yep: :yeah:

That said, it's not just aesthetics. Having spent some time in another large Florida city, I've learned to stay away from city parks, because the homeless people there harass bypassers and occupy public-use areas. They are difficult to deal with, and they render whole areas of the park unusable to anyone else. It becomes a safety and sanitation issue. I'm sorry, but that's not just trivial - it's making public-use land publically-unusable.

Fair point. :yep:

It is a Catch-22 situation I must admit, because there are people out there who will abuse the system (just as there are people who abuse the benefit system) but as someones signature (Steves?) says "A right should not be witheld from people on the basis that some abuse it" (or something a bit like that) and that step from poverty into employment is surely a right that should be provided by the government...after all, what else is such a system in place for than to protect and defend the people who have created it? (in theory, of course :03:)

Some people prefer to be homeless. It's a burden free life not having to worry about working to pay all the bills that go with home ownership.
Then there are those who are forced into the wide open spaces through no fault of their own.
There are reasonable solutions available to assist the less fortunate that would keep them out of the parks and still provide a modicum of freedom and a place where good Samaritans can feed them to their heart's content.

All that would be needed is a large unused lot and some shipping containers.

Many of them are unemployable for the simple reason of having no permanent address.:-?