6 ms·

""Street feeding is one of the worst things to do, because it keeps people in homeless status," he says. "I think it's very unproductive, very enabling, and it

""Street feeding is one of the worst things to do, because it keeps people in homeless status," he says. "I think it's very unproductive, very enabling, and it keeps people out of recovery programs." Instead, he thinks food sharing programs should only be located near what he calls the "core areas of recovery": mental health, substance abuse and job readiness services. Otherwise, he says, homeless people may spend more time pursuing food than the services that will help them get back on their feet." Not the argument I was expecting, but I would say I think making it illegal to feed people is the wrong.

melling 12y ago
I think he's making the case that it should be illegal to hand out food at certain locations. However, you can certainly donate food to shelters or food centers, for example. It does seem like a good idea to provide basic food services for the homeless so they know where they can get their next meal, rather than begging on the street. Medical services should be supplied there also. It would be a more effective use of resources. I'm not sure if it should be illegal, but as a civilization that's probably what we should encourage.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  I agree. But making it illegal to feed the homeless, or feed them in some locations seems heavy handed and wrong. If you want to encourage feeding the homeless in places close to where they can get other types of assistance, you should take positive steps to encourage that: Provide assistance (financial or logistical) to organizations doing the feeding in proper locations. Provide transportation to help the homeless get to the proper locations. Or most simply: Ask the organizations or people what you can do to get them to start feeding the homeless in proper locations.
  - Consultant32452 12y ago
    The issue is the realization that feeding the homeless in unstructured environments is a net negative. It makes people feel good because, "Look, I helped that guy eat today." But the reality is that guy could've likely eaten a meal more appropriate to his specific health needs in a location best suited to help him with medical aid, psychiatric help, and job skills/placement. So we have this terrible predicament where people feel good about something that actually hurts people because they don't know better. It would be nice if education programs worked and people wised up and stopped feeding the homeless randomly, but you know what? It just doesn't work. We've tried that. So now the law is involved. It may sound crazy, but we have to get people to stop hurting the homeless by encouraging terribly unsafe behaviors like panhandling.
    - shkkmo 12y ago
      The issue is how you deal with a behavior that may be a net negative. Do you ban it? Or, Do you use education, incentives and support to change the prevalence of the behavior? Also, are you completely sure that if you ban unstructured feeding, all the homeless will get fed in a structured way? Or will banning the feeding lead to some people starving? Also, how do you know it's a net negative? Do you take the word of a politician who has incentive to move the homeless to low property value areas?
      - Consultant32452 12y ago
        I live in Orlando, the city that got some infamy a number of years ago for banning the public unstructured feedings. I feel confident in saying that education seems to have failed, but banning seems to have been fairly successful at least with respect to curbing the behavior. So that leaves the question of whether or not it's a net negative. Panhandling is demonstrably dangerous, and an argument for unstructured feeding is an argument for the status quo. I can definitely say that the status quo is an abject failure. As for the structured efforts, those must be measured and improved on an individual basis. They certainly have their own issues, but at least in my city those structured feeding facilities also provide access and information on medical care, job placement, and other assistance that is relevant to the homeless population.
higherpurpose 12y ago
I don't know about food, but I'd say giving money to beggars certainly enables them. In fact, there's a big Roma community that goes to France and other countries to beg there, because they know they will make "good money" begging. It's not just Roma, though. There are underground networks of beggars, where the people running the network get most of the money, and so on.
DenisM 12y ago
Well, in the real world you have to make choices: 1 - Continue to allow unstructured homeless feeding. Homeless continue to lose out on benefits of structured feeding. 2 - Make unstructured homeless feeding illegal. Homeless get benefits of structured feeding, but it clashes with our morals and ideas of personal liberties. 3 - Discourage unstructured homeless feeding without violating restricting anyone's rights. In an ideal world, you would chose option #3. However, we don't have that option, at least to the best of our knowledge. If we had such option, we would see a report from some place that tried and succeeded... Therefore by rejecting option #2 you are by default promoting option #1, that is prolonging pain and suffering in the name of superior morals.

melling 12y ago

I think he's making the case that it should be illegal to hand out food at certain locations. However, you can certainly donate food to shelters or food centers, for example. It does seem like a good idea to provide basic food services for the homeless so they know where they can get their next meal, rather than begging on the street. Medical services should be supplied there also. It would be a more effective use of resources. I'm not sure if it should be illegal, but as a civilization that's probably what we should encourage.

shkkmo 12y ago
I agree. But making it illegal to feed the homeless, or feed them in some locations seems heavy handed and wrong. If you want to encourage feeding the homeless in places close to where they can get other types of assistance, you should take positive steps to encourage that: Provide assistance (financial or logistical) to organizations doing the feeding in proper locations. Provide transportation to help the homeless get to the proper locations. Or most simply: Ask the organizations or people what you can do to get them to start feeding the homeless in proper locations.
- Consultant32452 12y ago
  The issue is the realization that feeding the homeless in unstructured environments is a net negative. It makes people feel good because, "Look, I helped that guy eat today." But the reality is that guy could've likely eaten a meal more appropriate to his specific health needs in a location best suited to help him with medical aid, psychiatric help, and job skills/placement. So we have this terrible predicament where people feel good about something that actually hurts people because they don't know better. It would be nice if education programs worked and people wised up and stopped feeding the homeless randomly, but you know what? It just doesn't work. We've tried that. So now the law is involved. It may sound crazy, but we have to get people to stop hurting the homeless by encouraging terribly unsafe behaviors like panhandling.
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    The issue is how you deal with a behavior that may be a net negative. Do you ban it? Or, Do you use education, incentives and support to change the prevalence of the behavior? Also, are you completely sure that if you ban unstructured feeding, all the homeless will get fed in a structured way? Or will banning the feeding lead to some people starving? Also, how do you know it's a net negative? Do you take the word of a politician who has incentive to move the homeless to low property value areas?
    - Consultant32452 12y ago
      I live in Orlando, the city that got some infamy a number of years ago for banning the public unstructured feedings. I feel confident in saying that education seems to have failed, but banning seems to have been fairly successful at least with respect to curbing the behavior. So that leaves the question of whether or not it's a net negative. Panhandling is demonstrably dangerous, and an argument for unstructured feeding is an argument for the status quo. I can definitely say that the status quo is an abject failure. As for the structured efforts, those must be measured and improved on an individual basis. They certainly have their own issues, but at least in my city those structured feeding facilities also provide access and information on medical care, job placement, and other assistance that is relevant to the homeless population.

higherpurpose 12y ago

I don't know about food, but I'd say giving money to beggars certainly enables them. In fact, there's a big Roma community that goes to France and other countries to beg there, because they know they will make "good money" begging. It's not just Roma, though. There are underground networks of beggars, where the people running the network get most of the money, and so on.

DenisM 12y ago

Well, in the real world you have to make choices: 1 - Continue to allow unstructured homeless feeding. Homeless continue to lose out on benefits of structured feeding. 2 - Make unstructured homeless feeding illegal. Homeless get benefits of structured feeding, but it clashes with our morals and ideas of personal liberties. 3 - Discourage unstructured homeless feeding without violating restricting anyone's rights. In an ideal world, you would chose option #3. However, we don't have that option, at least to the best of our knowledge. If we had such option, we would see a report from some place that tried and succeeded... Therefore by rejecting option #2 you are by default promoting option #1, that is prolonging pain and suffering in the name of superior morals.