Florida Couple Fined $746 For Crime Of Feeding Homeless People

Don said:

You keep saying they should have done this or that to gain state approval before feeding these people, and I haven't seen you say that feeding these people was more important than jumping through the state's hoops.

Click to expand...

You can twist it any way you want, Don. I don't know why you're so determined to, but go ahead.

Meanwhile, other organizations in that area are still feeding the less fortunate because they followed the rules and this couple is not.

Don said:

So bottom line, it's better for the hungry to do without than to receive charity in a non-state-approved way. I disagree. The two sides of this disagreement will never see eye-to-eye, regardless of the arguments offered. We come at the problem from opposite worldviews. To me, putting food in empty bellies comes first.

Click to expand...

So as long as someone is doing something they personally believe is "charitable" they are automatically exempt from any and all rules, laws and ordinances?

All I have to do to put myself above the law is declare whatever I am doing is charitable, and I'm good to go?

While most of us agree that feeding the hungry is charitable, there are many things that some people think are charitable that others don't agree fit that definition. Indeed, some could even argue that feeding the homeless may enable destructive behaviors. In countries ravaged by famine, "hunger" programs have often led to higher population (easier to get pregnant and stay that way when you're well fed) leading to higher populations with even less access to food.

But rather than go down the road of that argument (it's hard to argue that feeding hungry people is cruel to them), I'll offer another example.

A year ago my neighbor decided that it would be very charitable to dump stale danishes and bagels from his workplace onto the boulevard on our street. He wanted to feed the seagulls because he believed they were hungry and he felt sorry for them. Never mind that we live in a beachside town with a bay and river providing plenty of offal for the flying rats, as well as having the usual compliment of fast food places for them to feast at. That wasn't enough for my neighbor; he wanted the screeching, shitting demons to plague our neighborhood, disrupt our cookouts, and defile our cars so he could feel good about his "generosity."

In addition to seagulls, the "charitable" garbage he dumped attracted opossums and skunks. When I asked him to stop doing this, he got very incensed and screeched in my face about how I had no heart and the poor seagulls were just hungry. He also declared his activity was "no different than feeding the ducks at the park" and demanded I ask our parks department what they thought, certain they'd approve of his most charitable act of feeding the poor, starving seagulls.

So I did go to the city -- not to the Parks Dept. because the boulevard is not a park -- and ask them what their policy was on dumping danish in the boulevard. They called it "dumping garbage on city property" and said it was in violation of city ordinances. The department they referred me to was called Blight Abatement. They wrote him a letter telling him to stop dumping garbage or face some hefty fines. He stopped. Peace was restored to neighborhood and the fucking seagulls went back to the beaches and fast food parking lots.

But according to your logic, his actions should have been protected (ETA or at least benevolently overlooked) by the city because he believed he was doing something charitable.

If these people had been on private property, the whole "it's their choice to be charitable" argument might hold some weight.

They were not. Instead, they chose to violate the posted rules of a public park.

It's got nothing to do with oppression or government overreach or hate for private charitable works.

These people knew the law and decided they were above it. If their biggest concern was truly helping the homeless, they could have found a privately owned space on which to do it. That they did not says that they, and their supporters think that some people are simply above the law.

Myrealana said:

If these people had been on private property, the whole "it's their choice to be charitable" argument might hold some weight.

They were not. Instead, they chose to violate the posted rules of a public park.

It's got nothing to do with oppression or government overreach or hate for private charitable works.

These people knew the law and decided they were above it. If their biggest concern was truly helping the homeless, they could have found a privately owned space on which to do it. That they did not says that they, and their supporters think that some people are simply above the law.

Click to expand...

Yes, this. It wasn't the charitable act that they were required to do with state approval, it was the use of state property they were required to do with state approval.

JimmyB27 said:

Yes, this. It wasn't the charitable act that they were required to do with state approval, it was the use of state property they were required to do with state approval.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

If my jerk neighbor had been feeding the seagulls in his own yard, I couldn't have done much about it. (Fortunately he's anal retentive about his yard.)

I still can't get past the idea of this park being an island, and not a place easily accessible to the folks they were trying to feed. Getting to the food would have meant walking - or relocating - to this park or a place closer to it.

Most outreach programs take their assistance to the people who need it; they don't set up shop in another neighborhood and tell the folks in need to come get it. I'm wondering why they chose this particular location. Were they trying to force people to notice the less fortunate, or did they maybe think it was safer to use the park than to go into a less maintained neighborhood? I mean it's safe to assume that the police would respond quicker to a report of trouble at a park frequented by kids and tourists, but it's still a weird way to run a charity.

Devil Ledbetter said:

So as long as someone is doing something they personally believe is "charitable" they are automatically exempt from any and all rules, laws and ordinances?

All I have to do to put myself above the law is declare whatever I am doing is charitable, and I'm good to go?

Click to expand...

This. I don't see good intentions as automatic carte blanche, though some people seem to (I've followed this story on another forum as well). I've also seen a similar attitude in some 'activist groups' and it struck me more as about the ego of the person with the intentions than actually helping others. That this is news makes me suspect that, at least to an extent.

Don said:

As an atheist, I don't use the "because Jesus" meme. I use the "well-being of every individual" meme.

Click to expand...

And you think you get to be the one to decide which activities support the well being of the individual, and which do not? Because not everyone agrees on that.

It's probably a good thing that a little bit of ego and self-aggrandizement are usually, if not always, involved in the provision of charity to the less fortunate. Whatever motivates folks to do something worthwhile is a plus. But those motivators don't give anyone the right to just plunge ahead doing what they have decided is good for the poor, in the manner in which they have decided to do it, and damn everybody else. Following rules established presumably for the general good do not equal bowing down to the state. Except for those who twist any compliance with rules to mean bowing down to the state.

Don said:

So bottom line, it's better for the hungry to do without than to receive charity in a non-state-approved way. I disagree.

Click to expand...

It isn't really about what is better or worse, Don. It's about actions having consequences. If the couple were willing to accept the consequences of the way they went about it, I wouldn't even have anything to say about it. Their POV, however, seems to be that the state, the police, and everyone else should have looked at them and what they were doing and decided they were special, and the rules should not apply to them.

If someone else were planning a concert in the park, they might think that is worthwhile and beneficial, too.

I find fault with the city for it's passive/aggressive handling of the situation. Ignore it until enough people gripe, then do something about it. Don't see a problem looming and wait until a good compromise is not available.

Synonym said:

I find fault with the city for it's passive/aggressive handling of the situation. Ignore it until enough people gripe, then do something about it. Don't see a problem looming and wait until a good compromise is not available.

Click to expand...

See, this I can understand, the city should of acted sooner if it was such a problem. That doesn't mean the people running this charitable event should be exempt from being fined though, only that the city could and should of stepped in earlier. Maybe something reasonable could of been agreed on then.

Don said:

Some people see the well-being of individuals as tantamount. Some people see obedience to authority and the well-being of the collective as tantamount. The two groups will never reconcile. That's the "civil war" in our future. This thread, as are so many others, is proof of that.

Click to expand...

No. It's really not. Neither was the event from the OP. Attempting to equate them requires a narrow, intentionally limited view and reads more as an attempt at hijacking to fit another agenda.

Mod Note: You should probably stop that.

Don said:

What they chose to do was feed empty bellies in a non-state-approved way. I see filling bellies as the most important act. You don't. I get that.

Click to expand...

You know, I manage to feed empty bellies every year without encouraging homeless people walk long distances to trample through a public park. So do a lot of other people in that very town.

These particular people filling bellies in this specific way is not the most important act.

I read the link to the article in the OP and it doesn't make any mention of what arrangement they made for trash pick up, whether or not they have liability insurance to hold such an event, or what sort of toilet facilities the park has that could accommodate such a large group of people. When someone applies for a permit for such a large event (and people do so in public parks all the time) they must account for all of these things.

It also doesn't mention whether or not the church group has a catering truck or some other inspected food carrier that can keep food at the proper temperature for safe consumption. I took particular note of the menu, and speaking as one who has been violently ill from food poisoning (macaroni salad, I'm looking at you!) that is a disaster just waiting to happen.

So not only do these people believe that because they have a higher calling, the laws don't apply to them, they also seem to believe that their higher calling will also trump salmonella and their "guests" basic toileting needs. (Egads. Suspect food + not enough toilets = a park nightmare)

And if someone attending these events does get food poisoning, if they get hurt (or even die) because they didn't get permits or insurance, who is going to be held accountable? The do-gooders - or the city who allowed them to disregard the laws?

Yeah, I see this being done because ... Jesus. Furthermore, it seems they're doing this at the park not (just) because they see the rules of the park as unjust in themselves, but they see God's Law as being above Man's Law. Certainly not all or even most Christians believe that (and are willing to break "Man's Law" to follow their beliefs), but I've seen other individuals and groups of them who are - these are the ones who put the Ten Commandments at courthouses.

I clicked through to the Youtube video and looked at the comments - they are totally, 100 percent supportive of these people, even from a few atheists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTj8txNc8-0
I wonder, are they deleting negative or non-supportive comments?

Celia Cyanide said:

Don't you need a permit to sell food in public, too?

Click to expand...

I've often wondered, you don't need a permit to hold a potluck dinner, and many churches and other groups hold them regularly. How is food safety assured in potlucks?

emax100 said:

I will grant you it is always much, much better to work to reform the laws instead of blatantly flouting them.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, I've heard "the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it." If it's really that bad that the "wrong" people are getting arrested, citizens will storm the mayor's and city council's offices to have it removed.

However, with many of the laws we have on local, state and federal levels, and this list just keeps growing year after year, it often takes outrageous situations like this in order to raise genuine awareness at how problematic the laws in place are and to start movements for much needed reforms.

Click to expand...

I so want to go there (a great many existing laws are a great advantage for police - if they want to get you, they can likely pull out SOME old law to choose to enforce and get you on), but I don't quite see this as the thread for it.

clintl said:

Privatization of things like parks almost always results in decreased access for the public.

Click to expand...

I'm tempted to ask for a cite here...

RichardGarfinkle said:

Whenever doing something, one question needs to be answered: Who cleans up the mess?

This is especially true in a public space.

Click to expand...

There's certainly a bit of tragedy of the commons here.

kikazaru said:

I read the link to the article in the OP and it doesn't make any mention of what arrangement they made for trash pick up, whether or not they have liability insurance to hold such an event, or what sort of toilet facilities the park has that could accommodate such a large group of people. When someone applies for a permit for such a large event (and people do so in public parks all the time) they must account for all of these things.

It also doesn't mention whether or not the church group has a catering truck or some other inspected food carrier that can keep food at the proper temperature for safe consumption. I took particular note of the menu, and speaking as one who has been violently ill from food poisoning (macaroni salad, I'm looking at you!) that is a disaster just waiting to happen.

So not only do these people believe that because they have a higher calling, the laws don't apply to them, they also seem to believe that their higher calling will also trump salmonella and their "guests" basic toileting needs. (Egads. Suspect food + not enough toilets = a park nightmare)

And if someone attending these events does get food poisoning, if they get hurt (or even die) because they didn't get permits or insurance, who is going to be held accountable? The do-gooders - or the city who allowed them to disregard the laws?

Click to expand...

The article also does not make it clear if these rules applied only because of the rules on that public park or because the city officials required any sort of official cooperation in order to perform any kind of charitable acts. Here, in another version http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...threatened-with-jail-for-feeding-homeless?d=1 it is also outlined as one of the officers:

"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.

Click to expand...

This, to me and I suspect numerous others, suggests that these same issues could have arisen if they did in fact do it on their own front lawn. The comments in that article also suggest the idea that there were possibly corrupt motives behind this and/or that it was only about care for the city's tourism based income and not about any of the locals. One would need to know much more of the story, including specifics such as the extent to which the allegations of the couple not cleaning up after these services are valid or trumped up.

I definitely do not think the couple handled this in the best way possible but I am still not at all about to commend the officials who made this decision or give them credit for using tax dollars properly, particularly since Daytona Beach is known for being a place where there are way better possible uses of tax dollars than for stuff like this.

We've had variations of this story several times before. It runs something like this:

1. An organisation makes a number of rules so that there is consistency of approach. This could be a school banning a certain kind of haircut, a city council banning unauthorised feeding of the poor, health and safety regulations to stop people from being injured or killed.

2. When these rules are being made there is usually a very good reason for making them. Some haircuts in school could be gang related, some unauthorised feeding of the poor could be harmful, someone made have died or been injured because of a health and safety issue. In many cases, the rule will have been triggered by an actual incident.

3. Time passes. Eventually someone decides to break one of these rules because they don't agree with it. Their kid's haircut isn't gang related, they want to help the poor, the health and safety regulations are silly. They either don't know or don't care about the problems that gave rise to the rules in the first place. And anyway their example is different. It always is different.

4. They might get away with breaking the rule for a while, but at some point someone complains to the authorities that a rule has been broken.

5. At this point, the authorities have no choice except to enforce the rules. If they allow an exception to happen it could open the floodgates to the rule being ignored by everyone. They could also be sued for misconduct for breaking their own rule. And they are well aware of the real reason why the rule was there in the first place.

6. Local press get hold of the story, usually because the people who broke the rule decide to make an issue of it. The press then run a one-sided story like "Florida couple fined £746 for feeding homeless people" or "kid told to shave off dodgers haircut" or some "silly" health and safety story. They conveniently don't mention the issue that gave rise to the rule in the first place.

7. Everyone rants and raves about how stupid and uncaring the organisation is, whether this is a school, a city council, or a Government.

8. Until someone's child is bullied because a school didn't enforce a haircut policy, or residents complain about a park being taken over by homeless people or someone dies because a health and safety rule wasn't in place or wasn't followed.

9. And then the same people who criticised the organisation at point 7 will start to criticise them for not "doing something" to stop the problem from happening. Doing something like having a sensible set of rules and making sure that people stick by them.

10. That's when the organisation decides to update its rules, bringing us right back to step one.

Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Local newspapers and television stations make their living out of this sort of stuff - alternatively criticising large organisations for having rules and then for not having them. It's easy one-sided journalism because it panders into people's feelings that all large organisations (especially those in the public sector) are either evil or incompetent or both.

It is A Good Thing to feed homeless people. No-one would argue with that. But doing it in an unauthorised place, with negative consequences for residents and when you are knowingly breaking a city regulation is Not A Good Thing. Instead of trying to fight the regulations (which are there for a very good reason), why not look for a way to help people that doesn't have negative consequences?

One of the difficult things in my working life was when I worked on a new health and safety regulation. This change in regulation was caused by a single incident where several children died because the adults who were supposed to be looking after them either didn't know the rules or didn't follow them. Reading the testimony of the survivors was one of the most harrowing things I have ever had to do.

The incident prompted a change in the law. That change in the law has saved many lives since then. And it has also been the butt of cheap jokes and criticism by people who either forgot or didn't know why the law was changed in the first place.

Societies need rules - and people sensible enough to follow them. It's all about seeing both sides of the story.

Yeah...this doesn't have anything to do with that kid's haircut.

While the "rules exist for a reason" argument has some logic, equating something that effected a few people in a family with an event that effected thousands of people, both the homeless and in the several neighborhoods around that park, is more than a bit broken.

Mod Note:
Unless it is an attempt to drag an old argument from another thread into this one. But you wouldn't do that, not even Once!, would you?

Yeah, couldn't help myself.

Synonym said:

I find fault with the city for it's passive/aggressive handling of the situation. Ignore it until enough people gripe, then do something about it. Don't see a problem looming and wait until a good compromise is not available.

Click to expand...

Lillith1991 said:

See, this I can understand, the city should of acted sooner if it was such a problem. That doesn't mean the people running this charitable event should be exempt from being fined though, only that the city could and should of stepped in earlier. Maybe something reasonable could of been agreed on then.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter. If it is true that they have been doing this for a year, I find it unlikely that no one has ever said anything, that no one has complained, no one has pointed out to them that they needed permission, were breaking clearly posted rules for the park.

I think there have probably been some complaints and warnings in the past, but the city didn't act perhaps hoping the Jimenezes would either stop the events or relocate voluntarily. But I would bet that the events have gotten steadily larger to the point that there were many more complaints.

The idea that the rules shouldn't apply to them because they are special is, imo, a silly argument. Here's the signage at the entrance, btw (and some nice views of the park).

That's pretty damn clear. And apparently there are areas for feeding programs. If this was all about good deeds, those good deeds could still have been done without breaking the rules of this park, because there really is no reason this park has to be used that I can see.

'Course, it is pretty. And I guess it makes for nice vids and pictures of "good works" for Facebook pages, which probably helps with the donation game.

Incidentally, here's the same story at The Blaze (the one in the OP is at ThinkProgress). Comparing the comments in each is a hoot...