Please Don't Feed Our Homeless, Many Cities Say

A quaint Dickensian imperative, known virtually to all, implores us to remember that charity begins at home. But a modern day trend, in evidence from coast to coast and in cities large and small, would have it end there, too, according to a newly-released report from the National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. From Myrtle Beach to San Diego, the report documents city after city compounding already hard times by placing legal restrictions not just on the rights of the homeless to ask for help but on the act of giving, as well.

Following upon an initial report issued in 2007, the new study, "A Place at the Table: Prohibitions on Sharing Food with People Experiencing Homelessness," singles out cities which "still choose to implement measures that criminalize homelessness and, at times, penalize those who serve homeless persons." The 21 such cities cited in the report — ranging from the tiny Sultan, Washington, population 4,200, to metropolises like Miami, Atlanta and Cleveland — have found a host of legal means to control just how much charity can occur within their borders.

Limiting how many people can be served; restricting use of public space, primarily in public parks; good old-fashioned zoning restrictions and even imposing special food safety restrictions are just some of the ways that cities are targeting what many consider not merely a legal right but a moral command.

In the midst of an historic economic downturn which has seen the largest increases in demand for services in decades — greater demands in 2009 for shelter in 82 percent of cities surveyed and a 26 percent average increase in demand for assistance, the greatest increase since 1991 — the report not only focuses on the ordinances, policies and tactics which deter providing assistance but outlines what might be called a classical mythology of homelessness which results in the banishment of our most vulnerable citizens to the edges of society, "an action that often exacerbates the challenges people experiencing homelessness face each day just to survive."

Gainesville, Florida, for example, has limited how many meals its soup kitchens serve to 130 per day, in spite of some facilities' capacity to serve a much greater number. According to Kirsten Clanton, chairwoman of the Florida Public Interest Law Group's homelessness section, the number has remained inflexible even on major holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas.

In Phoenix, Arizona, meanwhile, zoning laws were invoked to stop a local church from serving breakfast to community members, including many homeless people.

And in tourist mecca Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, the City Council last year adopted an ordinance that restricts food sharing with homeless people in public parks. Although they are free, groups may only obtain a permit four times a year. A similar ordinance in Orlando, Florida, was overturned in 2008 by a U.S. District Court but, on appeal by the city, the case is now awaiting a ruling in the 11th Circuit Court.

Beyond these local strictures, the report also highlights an edifice of 20th Century human rights law that would no doubt leave Scrooge turning in his grave while it seems merely to have left cold so many legislators and other minions of commerce. The report notes food as "a recognized human right, explicitly addressed in over 120 instruments of international law since 1920 and included in the domestic constitutions of 22 nations."

"The International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) explains that states have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill certain rights," the report notes, and "must ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive someone of their access to food, and must take proactive action to increase access to food." The United States is not an ICESCR signatory.

Perhaps the most odious proposals to date, in Miami and Oakland Park, Florida, for example, have fortunately yet to be enacted. Both the Miami ordinance, initially introduced in March, and the more recent proposal in a Ft. Lauderdale suburb, would criminalize individual acts of charity, like giving a sandwich or spare change to a homeless person. The Miami ordinance if enacted theoretically could impose a $300 fine on someone just for sharing their lunch in public. The Oakland Park proposal, not part of the report, will be taken up again after the summer despite an initial public uproar, according to a city official.

Fortunately for the homeless, the report also cites several cities which are trying to set a better example by creatively dealing with the dual challenge of hunger on top of homelessness. In San Francisco, a community farm has sprouted from a collaboration between the Welcome Ministry, which already had been providing meals to the homeless, and Tree, a long time food-justice advocate and founder of the Mission District’s Free Farm Stand.

In Fort Myers, Florida, a bad situation turned good in 2007 when city officials, with some persuading from local homeless advocates and representatives from both NCH and NLCHP, abandoned a proposed ordinance which would have limited food sharing and, doing a complete about-face, established a Hunger Task Force which initially identified alternative food distribution methods and ultimately led to the creation of a mobile food pantry.

Portland, Oregon, Washington D.C. and St. Louis, Missouri also are acknowledged in the report for a variety of constructive responses to the need to feed the homeless.

The federal government, too, has contributed with reforms to allow the use of food stamps in certain restaurants, though only California, particularly Los Angeles County, has taken broad advantage of the plan which was instituted in 1990 in recognition of the difficulty of food storage among the homeless. And in 1999. the Child and Adult Care Food Program was expanded to provide meals to children residing in homeless shelters and to reimburse the shelters for up to three meals per day.

These and other ideas form the basis of a variety of policy recommendations with which the report concludes. Improved collaboration by local government with existing organizations and more outreach at the federal level make up part of the picture but, what seems more basic to reversing the pattern of criminalizing homelessness, as occurred in Ft. Myers, is to challenge mistaken beliefs as to its root causes and to insist that while the problem of homelessness falls most heavily on those experiencing it, its systemic causes are society's responsibility to face.

Dickens also had a title that might suit those in the homeless advocacy community who struggle for the day when such understanding is more universal and homelessness is a thing of the past: Great Expectations.

Photo credit: D.C.Atty