Feeding the homeless is banned

I see today’s one of those days you are deciding you just want to mock.

That’s good…everyone needs a break now and then.

1 Like

What gives you the gumption to judge?

1 Like

I’m sure the church was just oblivious and this comes as a complete surprise to them.

Did the church reach out to the community about their concerns? Did the church counsel the homeless on respect for community? Evict anyone from their property if causing problems in the community?

It isn’t just a one way street.


So you are asserting an entire petition campaign and laundry list of negative neighborhood impacts were completely unknown to the Church members facilitating the meal program 6 days a week.

Quite a stretch of the imagination. In towns that are 6000 people everyone knows everything about the neighbors.

1 Like

The Church knew and valued their own benevolence above the harm and concerns of its neighbors.

1 Like

In a town of 6k, how many homeless can we be talking about?

6 posts were merged into an existing topic: General Off-Topic Slop from Various Threads +fd

I didn’t say it was a one way street. I addressed how the citizens of the town may (or may not) have acted if they immediately went to the council as opposed to first letting the church know of their concerns. Its possible the church was oblivious…focused on their mission. How are they do know if someone doesn’t tell them?

Speaking of bias…isn’t it interesting that you immediately come to the conclusion the townspeople’s complaints were valid as opposed to just grousing because of “how it looked”.

Why do you immediately assume the homeless people were doing everything the townspeople were accusing them of doing, to the degree they said they were doing it?

Why do you assume they have to be “taught to respect the community”?


I’m a living breathing human being.

How very millennial.

That is a fair question.

My bias is fueled by decades of the same MO of the homeless with squatting, littering, drug use and aggressive panhandling in my area. It is so prevalent that it is impossible to miss. Winter is a welcome curb to the activity that warm climates are not getting.

Way back in 2005.

About a dozen Downtown and Oakland business owners and advocates at the public hearing told City Council that they needed the restrictions.

“Aggressive panhandling is a nuisance which discourages pedestrians from shopping in our business district,” said Georgia Petropoulos, executive director of the Oakland Business Improvement District.

Commuters and fans of Downtown’s cultural offerings are deterred by panhandlers from living there, added Patty Burk, program director of the Downtown Living Initiative. “Panhandling is turning a lot of these people off,” she said.

Almost ten years later…no better.

But his proposal to expand the city’s existing, equally questionable ordinance prohibiting street-begging after sunset and before sunrise — are hunger and the need for shelter somehow related to time of day and amount of sunlight? — and in “captive audience areas” that include sidewalk cafes and performance venue lines is a stretch, nonetheless.

How can Mr. Kraus and supporters of this proposal justify further restrictions on homeless and needy residents in an era when social service agencies, shelters and food kitchens are financially strapped and government welfare agencies are under assault? What is the reasoning in making it even harder for denizens of society’s underclass to seek funding on their own?

Post pandemic it is even worse.

A post was merged into an existing topic: General Off-Topic Slop from Various Threads +fd

You can’t serious. In a town of 6K?

Why would it be a bias. Do you think there isn’t a problem with the homeless via the complaints made last year?

Why do you assume they haven’t?

See the complaint.

  1. I live in a community of about 10-15,000. It’s possible to not know everything that’s going on in the town.
  2. It’s bias because you automatically assumed the homeless were acting up to the degree the complaintants said they were. It’s quite possible the complaintants didn’t like a lot of homeless people hanging about, and so they exaggerated their complaints. That does happen.
  3. I’ve made no such assumption. That’s what “reserving judgement until I know more details” means. I can’t answer whether there’s a homeless issue in Brookings…only that some people complained about them.
  4. This assumes the homeless folks did everything that was in the complaints. You have no way of knowing that unless you live there and investigated.

And this is what I’m talking about. The ONLY thing I said about this case was that church and community ought to have come together and discussed any issues and how to handle them before anyone went to the authorities. There’s no evidence this happened.

So I suggested a way this potentially could have been resolved peacefully. And now I’m getting bludgeoned over the head for this…why?

Instead, as usual, it appears everyone retreated into their camps and are now using government and the courts to hammer each other.

And the same thing happened here. NO ONE KNOWS here what actually happened to start all of this…but everyone has a strong opinion on it based pretty much solely on their own biases extracted out of two very high level news articles on the incident.

1 Like

I’m trying to understand how complaints filed last year + the city now imposing restrictions means to you that all of the citizens are exaggerating, nor have they tried reaching out to the church first before it had to reach this point.

1 Like

Reelin in the years.

Please give me a break

Do you seriously have no idea how local government works?

That isn’t the point. The point is the premise that no one has tried to approach the church about this prior to it reaching this point.