Reason’s Nanny of the Month

posted at 11:36 am on November 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

I’m not sure I’d call this one a Nanny of the Month. I’d be more inclined to award Sal DiCiccio and the Phoenix City Council the Scrooge of the Year Award instead. What kind of people pass a zoning decision that makes food kitchens at churches illegal — at ThanksgivingReason.tv gives us the answer:

Unless the churches charged for their pancake breakfasts, I don’t see how this is anyone’s business but the church.  It’s their property, and their food, for that matter.  If they want to feed the hungry, which seems even more of an imperative this year, then the city should applaud those efforts.  After all, a voluntary work of charity for the community should be encouraged, not zoned out of existence.

This is the kind of story that should unite property-rights advocates on the Right and community activists on the Left.  Let’s hope the December 14th hearing clears the way for Phoenix churches to feed the hungry on Christmas — and that Santa has an extra helping of sticks and lumps of coal for Sal and his friends on the city council this year.

Update: I’m not unsympathetic to the security issues of having homeless people wandering through residential neighborhoods looking for a meal.  I lived in Phoenix for a couple of years, and it’s not an insubstantial issue.  However, the proper way to stop that is to have the police enforce the law, not decide that a free meal service to the poor amounts to a restaurant.

I’ll share a story with you.  I lived in Phoenix for a couple of years, and worked at a nice office park — or at least it was until a strip club opened in it.  We would have our parking lot littered with syringes, broken liquor bottles, used condoms, and more than occasionally passed-out drunks.  The city refused to do anything about that situation for as long as I lived there, even after a tiger in one of the strip acts attacked and seriously injured someone in the audience (don’t ask what a tiger was doing in a strip act; I’ve never figured that one out).  Their sudden concern over a free meal service at a church doesn’t impress me much.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This is scary.

bridgetown on November 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Hope and change

faraway on November 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Oh for cryin out loud. What’s next, no breast feeding in church?

Knucklehead on November 30, 2009 at 11:41 AM

We need to send Sheriff Joe out to chat with Sal and reward Sal with a nice long stay in tent city. What a buffoon.

dthorny on November 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

You see, the churches were cutting in on the government’s action in helping people. Everyone knows that the government is the only organization anyone can turn to for help. :)

txaggie on November 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

unfreakingbelievable…

cmsinaz on November 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

The Nanny State hates competition.

Socratease on November 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Isn’t it obvious? Christians are evil and need to be eradicated. Feeding the poor? Off with their heads!

uknowmorethanme on November 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Spooky, but not surprising. The truly hardcore left secretly hate competition in the arena of ‘charity’.

If this kind of ghoulishness keeps up, though, it may be a good idea to talk to survivors of Communist states like Cuba and the old USSR…they know a thing or two about smuggling food.

Dark-Star on November 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM

It’s a rule that’s just too stupid (and unconstitutional) to endure for long.

RBMN on November 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM

……total frickin FUBAR!

try again later on November 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM

How dare the church set foot into the area of giving out free food! Such beneficence is reserved to the Government! How else can the politicians buy votes if everyone is allowed to give away food?

They should strip this church of its tax exemptions for crossing the line into political activism.

unclesmrgol on November 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM

What happened to America?

angryed on November 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Now if obama had sanctioned it,then that’s a different story.

ohiobabe on November 30, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Was this the unintended consequence of a zoning decision, or was it the intended outcome?

The government should punish evil and condone good. If it punishes good, then they’ll get less of it.

If it condones evil–like the NBPP voting scandal–then it’ll get more of it.

Bureaucrats are you listening?

ted c on November 30, 2009 at 11:47 AM

[Comment deleted.]

Daveyardbird on November 30, 2009 at 11:49 AM

What’s next, no breast feeding in church?Knucklehead on November 30, 2009 at 11:41 AM

WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?!

blatantblue on November 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM

algore has been feeding us balogna. What is with that?

seven on November 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM

There can be no charity with an all powerful, all hungry state. The goal is total redistribution. For those with more to give to those with less indicates class distinction. Socialists aim for total leveling with only the state as master.

THAT’s scary.

Diane on November 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM

It is time that we just ignore idiot laws.

unseen on November 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM

That headline should read Ninny of the Month.

flmom on November 30, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Not as bad as NYC where missions and poor houses can’t accept charitable food donations because the transfat content can’t be verified.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM

They are not the “official” volunteers sanctioned by the Obama government.

barnone on November 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Obama’s starving brother was not available for comment.

LibTired on November 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM

It is time that we just ignore idiot laws.

unseen on November 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM

But you are not a Black Panther in Philly. The DOC WILL prosecute YOU.

barnone on November 30, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Sorry…
DOJ not DOC

barnone on November 30, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Ban them!

This is a weekly occurrence not just once a year.
It is in a residential area.
I really want a bunch of wino/druggy/homeless/most with criminal histories in my neighborhood.

Despite the fit, neighbors and the preschool began reporting problems with the people that the free breakfasts attracted. Crozier said that after they were fed, various attendees would filter into the neighborhood and make problems, and because of the breakfast program, they were attracted to the church property other days of the week to seek handouts.

Problems that Corcoran cited in his ruling included homeless people sleeping and loitering in alleyways; an increase in burglaries and vandalism; aggressive panhandling; public intoxication and urination; and preschoolers encountering homeless and transient people in halls and bathrooms while at school.

“The neighboring residents are clearly worried and frightened for their safety and the safety of their families,” Corcoran wrote in his ruling. “There were repeated complaints that they are being put at risk by their exposure to a homeless and transient population, some of whom have criminal records, substance abuse problems and mental illnesses.”

Adding “their concerns are not without basis,” he cited studies for federal agencies that “estimated that upwards of 20 percent of a single adult homeless population can be assumed to have been incarcerated at some point” and that “an estimated 26 percent of sheltered homeless persons suffer from severe mental illness,” while an estimated 37 percent “suffer from chronic substance abuse issues.”

http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?091127+homelessness

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 11:55 AM

What you can’t tell from the video is that this church is located at Central and Northern Ave. in Phoenix. This is a very old, very wealthy part of the city and the center of political and financial clout. This is all about residents not wanting to see a bunch of homeless people milling around in “their” neighborhood while they take their morning walk.

azkenreid on November 30, 2009 at 11:56 AM

So, does having the family over for Thanksgiving dinner turn a home into a “dining hall in a residential area”?

Tuning Spork on November 30, 2009 at 11:57 AM

The girl looks like Palin at a glance.

echosyst on November 30, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Haven’t you ever heard of separation of church and state? It is the state’s job to feed the poor. Churches need to butt out.

/sarc

Kafir on November 30, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Phil Gordon is their Mayor, another tool who called our Maricopa County Sheriffs racist
the moronic leading the stupid

ginaswo on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM

First they came for the food that feeds the homeless… wait, WHAT?

LibTired on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Right. Poor people also don’t want their houses broken, people sleeping in their bushes, and peeing on their lawn.

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Mayor Bloomberg of NYC also did his best to hurt the poor, the food banks are forced to THROW AWAY meals with transfats after people deliver the donations

ginaswo on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Not as bad as NYC where missions and poor houses can’t accept charitable food donations because the transfat content can’t be verified.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM

R U shi##ing me?

Tim Zank on November 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Devils advocate. What happens when nice neighborhoods must accomodate the influx of homeless people choosing to reside closest to their next free meal.

Liberals think with their emotions and feeding the hungry is a lofty and wonderful goal. Does it sound so good when paper bag bums are peeing on your freshly mowed lawn because your local neighborhood church is running a soup kitchen?

Socmodfiscon on November 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM

You gonna eat that?

davidk on November 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM

They took our SEIU jobs!

ya2daup on November 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Ban them!

Judging from the comments I can tell most of you have no familiarity with the homeless.

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Well that’s Sad, and typical but mostly Sad.

Dr Evil on November 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM

There were repeated complaints that they are being put at risk by their exposure to a homeless and transient population, some of whom have criminal records, substance abuse problems and mental illnesses.”

Folks, that is the money quote there. They simply did not want “those people” in their neighborhood. I can guarantee you if there were any people who actually did anything remotely resembling a crime, it would have been reported in that story.

Johnnyreb on November 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Feeding programs are a bad idea. The street people need help which transforms their live for the better. Giving them a meal only steals another day out of their lives. If you want to help them you get them off the street into a safe, supportive environment with job training and placement, health services, sanitation, psychological and mental health counseling, and medical treatment. The feeding programs only help the donors feel better. It does nothing for the recipients.

scrubjay on November 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM

One of the larger fears may be saying a prayer thanking God for blessing the food.
Thank Obama but not God the left says.

seven on November 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Martin Sheen and the churches ruined Santa Monica for many years. They passed out free food in the parks. The homeless came and stayed. No one could use the parks anymore.

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Another bass-ackward decision by a unit of government. We sure wouldn’t want Christians feeding the hungry and praying for the sick. Those are the kinds of charitable actions that the government will get around to doing after much deliberation and raising of taxes.

NebCon on November 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

but johnnyreb not only do they not want the hungry THERE they dont want police asking legal status either for the migrant homeless workers

bunch of maroons

a recent study showed lib havens like Portland have almost no people of color living there, thus there idiotic plans for urban centers do not translate well to areas with actual populations of needy people

Bloomberg and his like are the ruin of charity
meanwhile food stamps usage is another record and the dude in charge of it wants even MORE people on it

they do not get it
they want the state to distribute forced charity not the church

ginaswo on November 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Where’s John McVain when you need him?

belad on November 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

scrubjay on November 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Absolutely!

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:04 PM

dont worry Blake, maybe santa monica can go atheist and put those pesky charitable churches out of business

sheesh, it is Thanksgiving people have a heart

ginaswo on November 30, 2009 at 12:04 PM

This is just a bureaucrat doing his bureaucrat thing. After all, we can’t have people just willy-nilly going around violating Article 4135, Sec. 205-C, Paras. 14 (a-g), p.14 ff. of the Phoenix City Code. Anarchy would ensue!

eeyore on November 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM

So, does having the family over for Thanksgiving dinner turn a home into a “dining hall in a residential area”?

Tuning Spork on November 30, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I invited a several friends who were from out of town and could not travel home for Thanksgiving to my family function. So, would I have violated the “ban”? BTW, there were almost 60 total people, so next year it could be more. (I hope.)

barnone on November 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Somebody needs to tell Sal to cram it with Roasted Chestnuts.

Patrick S on November 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM

they want the state to distribute forced charity not the church

ginaswo on November 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Wake up! That’s how they justify their existence.

belad on November 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM

You see, the churches were cutting in on the government’s action in helping people. Everyone knows that the government is the only organization anyone can turn to for help. :)

txaggie on November 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Exactly

DarkCurrent on November 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM

barnone on November 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM

If you did it every week and on holidays, yes you would be in violation. See, this is something Ed left out of his article – it’s not a once a year deal.

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:08 PM

This is the kind of story that should unite property-rights advocates on the Right and community activists on the Left.

It would seem that other property owners in the area would like to have their rights respected too:

Those in need get a warm meal and a consoling shoulder but it is what supposedly happens after the service that concerns Council Member Sal Diciccio. He tells 3TV, “We have had police reports indicating that there has been human feces found in certain areas, we have found people living in alleys. It has been a very significant issue for people in that neighborhood.”
His office has received a petition signed by more than 100 of his constituents complaining of the Saturday service. Diciccio admits, “It’s a complicated issue because the City of Phoenix wants people to help the homeless, but at the same time, you have to protect the neighborhoods and enforce the rules that are there.”

I like Reason, but it would seem they are a little quick to condemn a guy who is also a fiscal conservative:

But DiCiccio, who defeated Dana Marie Kennedy in a run-off election this month, said Phoenix can’t afford to continue down that path. He is proposing a three-pronged approach to restructure and curb employee costs:

• Outsource or privatize more city jobs and functions, such as automobile repairs, custodial work, parks maintenance and cleanup, human resources and printing. “A brake job is a brake job,” said Hal DeKeyser, DiCiccio’s chief of staff.

• Cut layers of bureaucracy for certain business processes and cross-train remaining employees to perform multiple tasks. For example, if it takes three employees to process a building permit, eliminate two of them and train the third to do the others’ jobs.

• “Redeploy” or shift resources and funding to police officers, firefighters and other front-line employees at City Hall.

While lacking specific details and numbers, DiCiccio’s plan comes just as Phoenix’s seven labor unions are preparing to begin negotiations with the city for new two-year contracts

.

RadClown on November 30, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Right. Poor people also don’t want their houses broken, people sleeping in their bushes, and peeing on their lawn.

If that’s happening, why aren’t those committing the acts being prosecuted?

Crazy thought, but MAYBE the key is to prosecute the people committing real crimes, not the people committing charity?

Crawford on November 30, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Where’s John McVain when you need him?

His former Phoenix home is selling for 5.9 Million and is across the street from this church. :-)

azkenreid on November 30, 2009 at 12:09 PM

dont worry Blake, maybe santa monica can go atheist and put those pesky charitable churches out of business

sheesh, it is Thanksgiving people have a heart

ginaswo on November 30, 2009 at 12:04 PM

No, they banned it. Now there are no longer thousands of homeless druggies and winos living in the parks and they can be used again by people who pay for them. Boo hoo hoo.

You get a clue. This was not a once a year on Thanksgiving thing. Or, is your boneheaded argument that since it was TG 4 days ago, people are required to give up the quality of their life and allow hundreds of homeless to take over their neighborhood?

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Another example of the complete disconnect between the citizens and politicians of our major cities and the rest of the country.

Maybe Arizonans need to lay siege to Phoenix?

Jaibones on November 30, 2009 at 12:12 PM

If you want to help them you get them off the street into a safe, supportive environment with job training and placement, health services, sanitation, psychological and mental health counseling, and medical treatment. The feeding programs only help the donors feel better. It does nothing for the recipients.

scrubjay on November 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM

And until the govt can pick the pockets of the taxpayers to fund some poorly run extremely overpriced program with union labor – let’s just let the poor starve. We wouldn’t want to help them for a day. Why get their hopes up. /s

katiejane on November 30, 2009 at 12:13 PM

people are required to give up the quality of their life and allow hundreds of homeless to take over their neighborhood?

Where should the homeless be sent?

Crawford on November 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM

If that’s happening, why aren’t those committing the acts being prosecuted?

Crawford on November 30, 2009 at 12:08 PM

They’re usually not worth the effort. As cliched as this will sound, police forces have real criminals to catch. Trying to haul in every bum who pees on someone’s lawn or play litterbug patrol can easily become a very poor use of limited resources, all things considering.

Dark-Star on November 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM

The Nanny State hates competition.

Socratease on November 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

BINGO! Give that man a Kewpie doll!

NavyMustang on November 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM

They’re usually not worth the effort. As cliched as this will sound, police forces have real criminals to catch. Trying to haul in every bum who pees on someone’s lawn or play litterbug patrol can easily become a very poor use of limited resources, all things considering.

Yet they have the resources to go after this church?

I call BS. Besides, have you ever heard of the “broken windows” theory?

Crawford on November 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

They can’t have private organizations honing in on their racket!

jeffn21 on November 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I think your original assumption is best. This IS nanny statism. No matter how you slice it.

When are we going to finally get together and dredge the governmental swamps and start over with a smaller less intrusive government. I’ve personally had enough.

Constitution NOW!!!!

tickleddragon on November 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM

If that’s happening, why aren’t those committing the acts being prosecuted?

Thanks for your idiotic response. These are quality of life crimes. You give them a ticket for peeing on someone’s lawn, they don’t pay it and they don’t show up for court.

All these trespassing and loitering laws are a b*tch to enforce because the damn ACLU is always opposing you and challenging the laws in court. They cost municipalities millions of dollars. They are also difficult laws to write. And again, if it is handled as an infraction, they don’t pay and don’t show up for court. If it is handled as a misdemeanor, they demand a trial. If you have a trial, bozos like you won’t convict because you don’t give a damn because it’s not your property. You boo hoo hoo for the homeless.

Crazy thought, but MAYBE the key is to prosecute the people committing real crimes, not the people committing charity?

Crawford on November 30, 2009 at 12:08 PM

You’re right, it is crazy. Did it ever occur to you that the may already be doing it? Did it ever occur to you that so long as they keep offering free food, they’ll keep coming and the crime will never abate?

Boo hoo hoo! Think of the homeless! (And screw the home owners.) <– Crawford

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Where should the homeless be sent?

Crawford on November 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Ideally, there would be enough good private- and state-run institutions that if a person was determined to be homeless for a period of more than a week or two, they would given a list of places to go in the vicinity (within the tri-county area or so) and told to either pick one, have one picked for you, or go to jail to do hard labor. Once the individual can finance their own apartment or home for one calender year without government assistance, they’re free to go. There would of course be a number of exceptions to the system for mental/physical reasons as well as for local funding, but the bottom line would be that you are simply not allowed to wander the streets.

Unfortunately, of course, this is my IDEAL system, which doesn’t exist. |-{

Dark-Star on November 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM

don’t ask what a tiger was doing in a strip act

LOL

beachgirlusa on November 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I’m not unsympathetic to the security issues of having homeless people wandering through residential neighborhoods looking for a meal.

Yes, you are.

I lived in Phoenix for a couple of years, and it’s not an insubstantial issue. However, the proper way to stop that is to have the police enforce the law, not decide that a free meal service to the poor amounts to a restaurant.

What do you know about the proper way of handling it, Ed? Have you ever tried to handle it? Ever work in law enforcement? Ever work as a prosecutor? A city government liaison officer? People have been trying to deal with the homeless problem for decades. Your way doesn’t work.

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Yet again proof that if you are one of those atheists that want christianity gone and want to convert as many people to atheism as possible then you can not be a fiscal or small government conservative. If christianity was gone it would give the government a huuuuuuuuuuuge excuse to raise taxes because all those churches/christian organizations that help to poor would no longer be there and, last I checked, not a single one of those atheist organizations out there have been doing what the church is currently doing for the poor.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 30, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I know that in my area (Seattle) the “homeless activists” have a tactic of getting local churches in suburban areas to host a “Tent City” for the homeless for several months at a time. Liberals always support this, supposedly out of charity, but we know from leaked emails that it’s really about a way to create pressure on suburbanites to support more money for government homeless problems.

On the other hand… churches that feed the homeless instead of actually housing them… that I think has far less in the way of an impact on zoning. Guess the liberals can’t figure out a way to use that to extort more money out of suburbanites so they feel free to quash it.

Sackett on November 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Yet they have the resources to go after this church?

Crawford on November 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Most churches and their attending members they have something to lose in the first place.

As for the rest of the argument…

All these trespassing and loitering laws are a b*tch to enforce because the damn ACLU is always opposing you and challenging the laws in court. They cost municipalities millions of dollars. They are also difficult laws to write. And again, if it is handled as an infraction, they don’t pay (and you can’t make them) and don’t show up for court. If it is handled as a misdemeanor, they demand a trial. (still more $)

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Dark-Star on November 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I don’t want homeless people being attracted to my neighborhood by the promise of free meals. I want the maximum distance possible between my children and potential danger. It’s not that I’m unsympathetic, but my family comes first. Period.

John Deaux on November 30, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Bravo Sal! Thank you for protecting the people. Now if you could just get those pesky Methodists to stop doling out free saltines and grape juice now and then, the world will be a safer place.

Laura in Maryland on November 30, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Um, something is not quite tracking here. Sal was just re-elected here in Phoenix, and he’s a stand-up guy. I’m not sure if he’s a conservative, but he’s definitely a Republican. (He’s a member of my local district, and always comes to the meetings.)

I voted for him, and even had a yard sign in my yard.

He’s making a huge positive difference in Phoenix, and he’s the best member of the council that we have. He’s certainly not deserving of some of the comments here.

I haven’t followed this story, but it’s not consistent with his actions. So, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, as usual, there’s more to this story than we’re seeing.

MNExpatriate on November 30, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Thanks for the article link, Blake. That puts a whole different light on it. The frequency of the event is the real issue. That tends to keep the homeless from straying far from that part of town. Regular handouts breed dependency.

That said, perhaps Phoenix should utilize the weekly feedings to round up the criminal elements. Seeing as how they are concentrating there…

http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?091127+homelessness

Ace ODale on November 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Obviously, the only proper way to take care of the poor is for the govt to hire a bunch of SEIU goons.

All this volunteerism stuff is robbing hardworking union goons of a paycheck. It can’t be permitted to continue.

MarkTheGreat on November 30, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Yea, the poor are like ducks. If you keep feeding them, they eventually won’t be able to feed themselves.

GW_SS-Delta on November 30, 2009 at 12:43 PM

This pretty much reflects the study which showed that liberals are far less likely than conservatives to give to charity, donate blood, do voluntary work or look after a sick relative. They are far more likely to think that these things are the responsibility of the government, not individuals such as themselves. The liberal’s penchant for big government has less to do with them caring about the disadvantaged than it has with them being too lazy to help the disadvantaged themselves.

Besides which, Ayn Rand approved of private charity so it must be bad.

Sharke on November 30, 2009 at 12:46 PM

“I’m not unsympathetic to the security issues of having homeless people wandering through residential neighborhoods looking for a meal.”

Which is why without more facts you can’t make an intelligent decision about this. Do they only do a holiday meal or are they feeding people everyday? How many? Has there been any reports of vandalism or damage because of it?

JeffinSac on November 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Well, I personally think the man should be voted out of office for simply not having enough IQ.

Who, but a stupid person, would do this and let it go through at Thanksgiving?

AnninCA on November 30, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Well, isn’t this a can of worms.

Count to 10 on November 30, 2009 at 12:52 PM

if only this had the blessing of (or was organized by) ACORN.

All charity must come from the all powerful state in our new Obamerica.

Incremental Tyranny marches onward.

PappyD61 on November 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

The liberal’s penchant for big government has less to do with them caring about the disadvantaged than it has with them being too lazy to help the disadvantaged themselves.

Sharke

Exactly. At least its this way with libs I know.

beachgirlusa on November 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

I don’t want homeless people being attracted to my neighborhood by the promise of free meals. I want the maximum distance possible between my children and potential danger. It’s not that I’m unsympathetic, but my family comes first. Period.

John Deaux on November 30, 2009 at 12:35 PM

All the people whining about this will be the first to demand that it stop if it happened in their neighborhoods.

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

There can be no charity with an all powerful, all hungry state. The goal is total redistribution. For those with more to give to those with less indicates class distinction. Socialists aim for total leveling with only the state as master.
THAT’s scary.
Diane on November 30, 2009

My thoughts exactly, only the “leveling” is shared misery, not elevated standards of living.
BTW, Ed, do you still have scars from that tiger bite?

SKYFOX on November 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM

This truly is a conservative’s dilemma. I have volunteered in many church feeding programs and these should be encouraged, as they generally work better and more efficiently than government programs. But if you believe in zoning, then a suburban church in a residential neighborhood must respect the other residents of that neighborhood and not force them to volunteer their yards as toilets, etc. Churches are also exempt from local taxation, and that can be even more galling to residents who are paying taxes yet are forced to clean up after the homeless clients of the church programs.

This church should respect its neighbors and volunteer to work out a solution that will be best for everyone. Perhaps there is a church in the city that would allow its facilities to be used or rented for this purpose.

It seems to me the councilman is doing his job, after receiving numerous legitimate complaints from his constituents about an ongoing nuisance and potential health hazard.

rockmom on November 30, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Hey! Back away from those homeless folks, God.

They belong to us. We will provide for them.

BobMbx on November 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM

All the people whining about this will be the first to demand that it stop if it happened in their neighborhoods.

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Of course they would. Nobody wants to be confronted by people who are mentally ill, unwashed, and scary, or find human waste in their yard. That’s not a conservative or liberal thing at all.

Perhaps the taxpaying citizens of Phoenix should start demanding that the city use some of its huge budget to produce some long term solutions to homelessness. They could hire Rudy Giuliani to show them how it’s done. I’ll bet the city wastes millions paying useless bureaucrats, running museums that could be privatized, etc. Big cities waste unimaginable amounts of money because voters rarely hold their local government accountable.

rockmom on November 30, 2009 at 1:14 PM

The city refused to do anything about that situation for as long as I lived there, even after a tiger in one of the strip acts attacked and seriously injured someone in the audience (don’t ask what a tiger was doing in a strip act; I’ve never figured that one out).

Such a sheltered life, Ed…

OK, I don’t get it either.

juanito on November 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

I’m an atheist and a big supporter of small faith based charities and believe that they should be allowed federal funds. They work. And if liberals truly wanted to help the people they say they want to help, they would support them, too.

And to all of you with your dumb the state wants to control all the charities stories/analogies – put down the crack pipe!

This is about property use. Use your property any way you want. But when your use infringes on other people’s enjoyment of their property, that’s when zoning laws come in. Reason – what a misnomer!

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM

God save us from liiiiberaaaaalllls.

ultracon on November 30, 2009 at 1:29 PM

rockmom on November 30, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Offer them freebies, and they will keep coming. It increases the homeless problem, not decreases it. I believe the city government only owes a duty to the city’s own homeless and should not expand programs to attract the homeless from other areas. The reason California has such a large homeless population is because they offer them more

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

God save us from liiiiberaaaaalllls.

ultracon on November 30, 2009 at 1:29 PM

But, God, save us from libertariiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaans first because every idea they come up with is nuts and demonstrates that they do not live in the real world or are children. Thanks. Amen.

Blake on November 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM

I notice that all the whiners condemning the churches aren’t asking what else churches do for these people.

It doesn’t stop and food and clothing. Most churches have programs for drug and alcohol rehab, job training, ESL education and other things.

Instead of the government just throwing money and benefits at these people, and leaving them where they are, the churches try to lift them out of their poverty.

Mommynator on November 30, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Homelessness and poverty are not fixable conditions, comparable to a complicated auto repair job. Even Jesus said ‘the poor are always with us’. And yes, the poor and homeless are often very problematical and unpleasant.

At my church food pantry, the dedicated lady in charge knows there is no long-term benefit from feeding these people, but she says, ‘at least their kids are not hungry’. Most are addict/alcoholics, whose money goes into their habits.

Aside from neighborhoods not wanting the disruption, I see 2 factors, both political. One is that liberals will undermine churches at every opportunity, as purveyors of competing ideology. The other is that libs see the poor as their tool to control, to use for publicity, and to manipulate votes. Don’t want the poor hearing a competing message.

Religion is under attack, see the Manhattan Declaration. Libs will not pass up an opportunity to dominate or control religious bodies.

jodetoad on November 30, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2