Well, sort of. There's a city ordinance that prevents it in areas zoned residential. The ordinance can be changed (and should) to allow this as an exception.

NIMBY asshats.

Trivia Jockey: The ordinance can be changed (and should) to allow this as an exception.

If they're going to change it at all they should just get rid of it. Churches shouldn't be special cases and should follow all laws and ordinances just as any other organization.

Pocket Ninja: NIMBY asshats.

Yep.

Two of my neighbors were complaining about the low-income housing being built next to our apartment building. It's a housing complex that will be run by a coalition of churches and neighborhood groups. San Francisco badly needs low income housing.

They honestly, straightforwardly said-- my neighbors, that is-- that the housing should be built in 'the ghetto'.

People are stupid and I don't like them.

Jesus knew well enough to get a permit before he fed the masses.

I have no problem with this. They didn't tell them they couldn't feed the poor, just that they can't do it anywhere the fark they want. Zoning exists for every single use of property you can think of, and I bet most of you are just fine with that, until someone comes along and pulls your heartstrings ... which most of you know is an extremely poor way to shape public policy.

Let them eat bootstraps.

WaltzingMathilda: Zoning exists for every single use of property you can think of, and I bet most of you are just fine with that, until someone comes along and pulls your heartstrings ... which most of you know is an extremely poor way to shape public policy.

I don't think letting developers and NIMBY-types decide public policy is a good way, either.

Calmamity: Let them eat bootstraps.

How about the whole shoe?



/Hot, like a cooked shoe.

Obdicut: WaltzingMathilda: Zoning exists for every single use of property you can think of, and I bet most of you are just fine with that, until someone comes along and pulls your heartstrings ... which most of you know is an extremely poor way to shape public policy.

I don't think letting developers and NIMBY-types decide public policy is a good way, either.

it's just zoning man. if there were no zones that permitted churches to feed the homeless, that'd be one thing. but there are.

would you have the same disdain for a zoning ordinance prohibiting strip clubs and liquor stores in a residential zone? because i'd rather have that in my backyard than any church related activity, but i bet my wishes aren't emotional enough.

WaltzingMathilda: it's just zoning man. if there were no zones that permitted churches to feed the homeless, that'd be one thing. but there are.

I know what zoning is. I know that it often prevents communities from doing things they need. I know that zoning laws are mainly influenced by developers.

WaltzingMathilda: would you have the same disdain for a zoning ordinance prohibiting strip clubs and liquor stores in a residential zone?

What does that have to do with this? Did I say I was against zoning, period? I'm mainly against the way that the zoning process almost always favors developers and wealthy members of the community over ordinary citizens. It favors the politically connected and powerful. We need steeper tests of community benefit for most zoning, rather than economic utility.

WaltzingMathilda: because i'd rather have that in my backyard than any church related activity, but i bet my wishes aren't emotional enough.

How are your wishes not emotional?

Take that, stupid Christians!

Feeding the poor is one of the few things a church is good for. I frown on these gov't shenanigans.

It's just like a nuclear waste dump. Everyone knows we desperately need one, but they don't want one in their backyard. Who wants the "poor" to start showing up in droves to your neighborhood? I'd have to put up a special fence

"If it's not written in the ordinance, it's not allowed," Pickering said.

One can only pray that they provided for respiration in the ordinance.

Obdicut: WaltzingMathilda: Zoning exists for every single use of property you can think of, and I bet most of you are just fine with that, until someone comes along and pulls your heartstrings ... which most of you know is an extremely poor way to shape public policy.

I don't think letting developers and NIMBY-types decide public policy is a good way, either.

Letting developers change zoning laws worked for him.

I agree with the feds on this one.

If we taxed the churches to begin with there would be more than enough money to feed the poor in this country.

Just have Sheriff Joe take care of it.

Obdicut: Pocket Ninja: NIMBY asshats.

Yep.

Two of my neighbors were complaining about the low-income housing being built next to our apartment building. It's a housing complex that will be run by a coalition of churches and neighborhood groups. San Francisco badly needs low income housing.

They honestly, straightforwardly said-- my neighbors, that is-- that the housing should be built in 'the ghetto'.

People are stupid and I don't like them.

Yep The issue here is the "undesirables" loitering, waiting for food, of all selfish acts they could subject the neighborhood to this really takes the cake.

Diogenes: Jesus knew well enough to get a permit before he fed the masses.

Ha! I'm pretty sure he held his gatherings in open public places and they were too busy with the flowing wine and multiplying fish to notice his lack of permit.

FTA:
The controversy over the weekly pancake worship service arose last spring after neighbors complained about an increase of homeless people sleeping and loitering in alleys, incidents of burglary, aggressive panhandling, vandalism, public intoxication, prostitution and public urination. Parents of preschool students on the church campus complained that their children encountered transients in school hallways.

So, the zoning laws notwithstanding, it sounds like it wouldn't have been a problem if some of the folks coming for the service could control themselves a bit...seems like a case of a few crazy homeless folks ruining it for the rest of them.

/Ain't that always the way?

As an atheist, I say let the church feed the poor and homeless. At least that's something tangible I can believe in.

Obdicut: I know what zoning is. I know that it often prevents communities from doing things they need. I know that zoning laws are mainly influenced by developers.

Developers often apply for zoning variances, and if their proposed development is deemed beneficial to the community at large they will get the variance. These decisions are made by people you can vote for.

Obdicut: What does that have to do with this? Did I say I was against zoning, period? I'm mainly against the way that the zoning process almost always favors developers and wealthy members of the community over ordinary citizens. It favors the politically connected and powerful. We need steeper tests of community benefit for most zoning, rather than economic utility.

mainly, it's another NIMBY example. are you anti-NIMBY entirely, or just when it means some people don't want their front yards effectively turned into a parking lot for the homeless? is a NIMBY ordinance prohibiting noxious uses in a residential zone ok while one prohibiting feeding the homeless not ok? because the bottom line is that residential is what it is - an area for living. i'd prefer next to no uses other than living in my backyard. it's why i moved there in the first place.

Obdicut: How are your wishes not emotional?

they may be to me, but i'm sure lamenting that the gubmint won't let me sell booze at my house while legally exhibiting to the public strippers sodomizing each other with vegetables for my profit in my basement just wouldn't bring quite the outrage that this story does.

shouldn't cons be supporting this: encourages bootstrappyness

/snark off

FTA: "It's not a problem with homeless people in wealthy neighborhoods. That would be a matter of prejudice. This issue would be setting churches up to avoid zoning ordinances."


Sorry just got to call BS on that one. Admitting that you are a stuck-up douche is the first step of recovery.


/I am definately a stuck-up douche

sigh.

I've been alarmed about the health effects of second-hand poverty for years. Think of the (well-off) children!

Let them eat cake!

If I put a building and call it a church, can I do whatever I want in it and have it protected by the 1st Amendment? No.

I wouldn't want a church in a residential zone anyway, too much traffic.

Gosh, those darn people are so inconvenient.

We'd be happy to help them if only yhey'd pay for it and then go back to their own neighbourhoods!

They're so ungrateful. It's not like Jesus went around feeding the poor!

/wait...

trappedspirit: It's just like a nuclear waste dump. Everyone knows we desperately need one, but they don't want one in their backyard.

Sooooo.... We should have nuclear waste dumps in residential neighborhoods?

FTA: The controversy over the weekly pancake worship service arose last spring after neighbors complained about an increase of homeless people sleeping and loitering in alleys, incidents of burglary, aggressive panhandling, vandalism, public intoxication, prostitution and public urination.

Yep, just a bunch of reactionary whiners. Or, maybe they had no problem with homeless people being fed, until there was collateral damage where they live, their children play, etc.?

Blow it out your ass. The church had their chance, but there was consequences for the surrounding area. So now they can still feed homeless people, but they can't do it where they were doing it. Because it caused problems.

Do I need to explain this with puppets?

erewhon: "If it's not written in the ordinance, it's not allowed," Pickering said.

One can only pray that they provided for respiration in the ordinance.

Funny I thought that was the opposite of how the law had to work. As long as it isn't outlawed, then it is ok. This whole thing is a pile of crap.

Phoenix sucks... and this is coming from someone who lives in Atlanta.

AbbeySomeone: Yep The issue here is the "undesirables" loitering, waiting for food, of all selfish acts they could subject the neighborhood to this really takes the cake.

No, the issue here is the crazy homeless folks AGGRESSIVELY panhandling, committing acts of vandalism, running around drunk, burglarizing homes, peeing on the streets in broad daylight, and so forth.

I'm all for helping the homeless, but the fact is that most people in the U.S. who are actually "homeless" (not just the ones that are living in tent cities or whatnot, but the ones who haven't actually had an address since 1964) are also seriously mentally ill. These are the guys finger-painting with their poo on the back wall of the supermarket. Even the ones that aren't completely nutso will CHASE you down the street begging for money and then shout obscenities at you if you don't give them any (or if you don't give them enough).

These people are a drain on society. Even if we did have Obamacare, these people are too insane to be able to get help, or too crazy to stay on their meds if they DID get help. It may sound callous, but just like a rabid dog, some people need to be put down.

altinos: As an atheist, I say let the church feed the poor and homeless. At least that's something tangible I can believe in.

How can you truly know that food actually exists?

/food agnostic

I do not think I have ever once seen in the news 'Homeless man found starved to death'.

Thisbymaster: erewhon: "If it's not written in the ordinance, it's not allowed," Pickering said.

One can only pray that they provided for respiration in the ordinance.

Funny I thought that was the opposite of how the law had to work. As long as it isn't outlawed, then it is ok. This whole thing is a pile of crap.

No. Zoning states what uses are permitted in specific zones. Enumerating a list of what is prohibited would cause too many loopholes. Think it through.

The Feds aren't doing anything here, it is simply a zoning law that says no soup kitchens in residential areas. Seems to make sense to me. In Chicagoland, the churches will just arrange for the use of a vacant storefront in a warehouse/industrial/commercial area...where the homeless actually live by the way...to distribute their meals. No muss, no fuss.

NovaeDeArx: Do I need to explain this with puppets?

this just in,

Condescension is a piss poor debate tool.

Soylent Green...

morgantx:
These people are a drain on society. Even if we did have Obamacare, these people are too insane to be able to get help, or too crazy to stay on their meds if they DID get help. It may sound callous, but just like a rabid dog, some people need to be put down.

But once Obamacare kicks in, when those people can't pay the mandatory health insurance fee, they will be rounded up and shipped to jail.

They should bus all the homeless downtown and drop them off at City Hall's cafeteria.

FTFA:

A Phoenix ordinance banning charity dining halls in residential neighborhoods withstood a challenge by a north-central Phoenix church.

neighbors complained about an increase of homeless people sleeping and loitering in alleys, incidents of burglary, aggressive panhandling, vandalism, public intoxication, prostitution and public urination. Parents of preschool students on the church campus complained that their children encountered transients in school hallways.


Seems like valid logic to enforce the laws. If the church wants to do this "good work", let them do it in the proper place.

morgantx: AbbeySomeone: Yep The issue here is the "undesirables" loitering, waiting for food, of all selfish acts they could subject the neighborhood to this really takes the cake.

No, the issue here is the crazy homeless folks AGGRESSIVELY panhandling, committing acts of vandalism, running around drunk, burglarizing homes, peeing on the streets in broad daylight, and so forth.

I'm all for helping the homeless, but the fact is that most people in the U.S. who are actually "homeless" (not just the ones that are living in tent cities or whatnot, but the ones who haven't actually had an address since 1964) are also seriously mentally ill. These are the guys finger-painting with their poo on the back wall of the supermarket. Even the ones that aren't completely nutso will CHASE you down the street begging for money and then shout obscenities at you if you don't give them any (or if you don't give them enough).

These people are a drain on society. Even if we did have Obamacare, these people are too insane to be able to get help, or too crazy to stay on their meds if they DID get help. It may sound callous, but just like a rabid dog, some people need to be put down.

No..they need to be put back in the loony bins. Someone in the '70s sued to "free" them, and this is what we got.

GaryPDX: They should bus all the homeless downtown and drop them off at City Hall's cafeteria.

what?! and use buses that my taxes pay for to give them a free ride? not on my watch buddy.

They aren't telling them they CAN'T feed the poor just not where they are currently doing it.

But nice try SUBMITROLL

thomps: GaryPDX: They should bus all the homeless downtown and drop them off at City Hall's cafeteria.

what?! and use buses that my taxes pay for to give them a free ride? not on my watch buddy.

Churches have buses..lol.

This issue may need a change of perspective. While feeding the poor is charity we can all get behind in the abstract, the reality is that free food does tend to create security problems. If a church or other organization is going to provide free food, shelter, whatever, that security issue needs to be addressed.

It's the same burden everyone looking to draw a crowd has to share. If I hold a concert in the park, especially if it's free, I have to take steps to ensure that this won't destroy the park. I need to assess the potential danger and provide security, proper bathroom facilities, shade if it's hot, access to water, etc.

If I'm having a blow-out sale in my shop and allow more people inside than is safe, I'm liable if people get hurt. If I throw money into a crowd and people get trampled on, I'm liable again for creating a dangerous situation.

Churches giving free food have to accept the responsibility for their charity's impact on the community, or the people around them are going to object.

bunner: NovaeDeArx: Do I need to explain this with puppets?

this just in,

Condescension is a piss poor debate tool.

Followup report:

So are emotional arguments and not reading the source material before knee-jerking a post out.

And that's your News at 11.