henric
06-18-2012, 08:03 PM
18/06/2012 8:30:00 AM
by Monica Bugajski
Another U.S. city has banned the outdoor feeding of homeless. Though the law claims to have altruistic intentions, is it hurting the most vulnerable?
The city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has banned the outdoor feeding of people on its street and in its city parks. City officials claim that the law is a way in which homeless can be fed in a dignified, humane way.
Under the new law, any person or organization wanting to distribute meals has to obtain a permit and meet food safety requirements before they are allowed to dole out any provisions. Gone are the days when feeding the hungry was about "opening the car trunk, handing out a bunch of sandwiches, and then driving off into the dark and rainy night" as Philly Mayor Michael Nutter says.
Although I'm not so sure how many times a trunk scenario of this kind actually unfolded, Mayor Nutter does have a point. The homeless are people, and they deserve to eat real food that isn't expired and doesn't contain dangerous ingredients or harmful bacteria resulting from poor preservation. They should be able to trust that they won't get sick from the food that individuals, groups, and organizations hand out.
But do the stipulations in the ban make the practice of charity more humane?
Sure, Philly doesn't want the homeless to eat like animals - on the streets and in the park - but I wonder how many of these free permits the city is actually going to distribute. It really appears as though the city is treating its transients like a pesky nuisance it wants to get rid of, or at least push to the side.
I can't help but think that city officials are more concerned with the where and when of meal distribution rather than the what. These permits will give the city control of where the homeless move and on what days and times they can congregate.
I understand that homeless gatherings are bad for business and bad for tourism, but if the city really wants to help that portion of the populace, it needs to build more shelters and more facilities that will house and feed them. It needs to invest in creating real safety nets for people to fall into when times get rough. Because the fact of the matter is that the economy is really rough.
More than ever, people are looking to charity organizations to get their basic needs met, and consequently, shelters and food banks are packed. There's an even greater need to feed the most vulnerable. So this isn't really the best time to be discouraging the public from flexing its altruistic muscle.
Forcing people to obtain permits in order to perform even the most basic acts of charity only works to dissuade those very deeds that the most vulnerable and needy depend upon. It's sad that the "City of Brotherly Love" is masking its true intentions behind a poorly disguised veil of goodwill, and I hope our cities don't follow its example.
by Monica Bugajski
Another U.S. city has banned the outdoor feeding of homeless. Though the law claims to have altruistic intentions, is it hurting the most vulnerable?
The city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has banned the outdoor feeding of people on its street and in its city parks. City officials claim that the law is a way in which homeless can be fed in a dignified, humane way.
Under the new law, any person or organization wanting to distribute meals has to obtain a permit and meet food safety requirements before they are allowed to dole out any provisions. Gone are the days when feeding the hungry was about "opening the car trunk, handing out a bunch of sandwiches, and then driving off into the dark and rainy night" as Philly Mayor Michael Nutter says.
Although I'm not so sure how many times a trunk scenario of this kind actually unfolded, Mayor Nutter does have a point. The homeless are people, and they deserve to eat real food that isn't expired and doesn't contain dangerous ingredients or harmful bacteria resulting from poor preservation. They should be able to trust that they won't get sick from the food that individuals, groups, and organizations hand out.
But do the stipulations in the ban make the practice of charity more humane?
Sure, Philly doesn't want the homeless to eat like animals - on the streets and in the park - but I wonder how many of these free permits the city is actually going to distribute. It really appears as though the city is treating its transients like a pesky nuisance it wants to get rid of, or at least push to the side.
I can't help but think that city officials are more concerned with the where and when of meal distribution rather than the what. These permits will give the city control of where the homeless move and on what days and times they can congregate.
I understand that homeless gatherings are bad for business and bad for tourism, but if the city really wants to help that portion of the populace, it needs to build more shelters and more facilities that will house and feed them. It needs to invest in creating real safety nets for people to fall into when times get rough. Because the fact of the matter is that the economy is really rough.
More than ever, people are looking to charity organizations to get their basic needs met, and consequently, shelters and food banks are packed. There's an even greater need to feed the most vulnerable. So this isn't really the best time to be discouraging the public from flexing its altruistic muscle.
Forcing people to obtain permits in order to perform even the most basic acts of charity only works to dissuade those very deeds that the most vulnerable and needy depend upon. It's sad that the "City of Brotherly Love" is masking its true intentions behind a poorly disguised veil of goodwill, and I hope our cities don't follow its example.