Feeding the homeless is banned

Which is why parking squad car in their parking lot is silly.

We could be printing concrete homes for 10k each. Plenty of federal land to put them on.

The won’t go unless its in a city or town somewhere.
If you bus them there or force them there they won’t stay.

Not a chance, not even a small one.

That’s a parking lot? I can’t see. :rofl:

1 Like

Plenty of empty commercial space then.

I can imagine that ending well or badly.
I am skeptical but I won’t rule it out.

You take one of the many vacant buildings that once was a supermarket. In the back is full kitchen facilities for some charitable organization to use, to feed the residents. There can be plenty of bathrooms installed in all the space that was formerly used for warehouse space.

Ditto all the vacant ex-K-Mart properties.

There are plenty of such buildings across the nation, and most likely in every town where there is a homeless problem. In fact, many of them are likely being squatted in already, so it’s not like they’ll be moving the homeless problem to these locations. It’s already there.

We (as a society) seem fine with installing safe drug-use facilities already. Why not safe homeless facilities?

Local governments would have to agree to pay the lease on such buildings.

Of course. Or, at least, work out a funding method through some benevolent institution.

In a sense, if the homeless don’t occupy empty commercial space,
they will occupy commercial space that is not vacant.

The whole idea below is kinda surreal, like something out of a sci-fi film.

They don’t actually spend it on homeless. Those in govt give it to their friends. That’s why they don’t even want to end homelessness. It’s a gravy train for connected SF dems…

If people and churches stop helping the homeless they will change their congregation points but

  • they will not stop being homeless
  • they will not move to another city.

Deck chairs on the Titanic.

In its Tuesday statement, the DOJ says the city’s ordinance does not further the city’s interest in promoting public welfare and safety.

“The issues with noise, aesthetics, and crime that prompted the ordinance are byproducts of homelessness and poverty that would persist in Brookings regardless of St. Timothy’s meal service — and indeed may even be made worse if St. Timothy’s were forced to curtail its meal service,” the statement of interest reads.

Glad to see that the DOJ is taking an interest in this case.

Since the lawsuit has been filed, St. Timothy’s has continued to provide meal services four days a week.

Good. Happy Thanksgiving to them.

Compassionate democrats.

That was not what the poster was looking for.

No wonder libs don’t like churches in their neighborhoods.

1 Like

Libs can’t punch down on a well-fed homeless population infecting their lib utopia. :wink:


St. Timothy’s had been serving meals to those in need for years, and Father Bernie Lindley argued the city was prohibiting the church from exercising its religious belief of serving the hungry.

Judge Mark Clark resoundingly agreed in his decision Wednesday, even saying one of the city’s arguments about the necessity of a permit in order to serve meals “defies any stretch of the imagination."

“The City of Brookings is very fortunate to have Reverend Lindley and the entire congregation of St. Timothy’s as compassionate, caring, and committed members of the community,” Judge Clark wrote in his opinion. “The homeless are not ‘vagrants,’ but are citizens in need. This is a time for collaboration, not ill-conceived ordinances that restrict care and resources for vulnerable people in our communities.”

“Our ultimate goal is to not have any restrictions on feeding those in need. As Jesus calls us to serve the hungry and to care for those who are sick, any sort of restrictions put on that ministry prohibits us from fulfilling our call as Christians,” she said

A welcome update. I’m glad the court ruled in the church’s favor. Happy Easter!


Judge Clark wrote in his opinion. “The homeless are not ‘vagrants,’ but are citizens in need.

Your link.

He’s wrong about that. He’s right about the ruling.


no soup for you…

but have free needles…

1 Like