A major city is getting ready to implement a rule banning the feeding of homeless on public property. According to Merrian Webster dictionary, the following defines the word “public”:
1a : exposed to general view : open
b : well-known, prominent
c : perceptible, material
2a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state
b : of or relating to a government
c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3a : of or relating to people in general : universal
b : general, popular
4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social
5: devoted to the general or national welfare : humanitarian
6a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community
b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market —often used with go
7: supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials
As can be seen from this unedited definition, public property can be considered to be that property that relates to “people in general”, “community interests”, “devoted to the general or national welfare: humanitarian”, “supported by public funds and private contributions” (which outreach groups define); and, most notably, “accessible to or shared by ALL members of the community.” (Emphasis mine).
This means that this property belongs as much to the homeless as to the taxpayers, no more and no less. I wonder if they were asked to vote on this measure? Taxes are paid to even the playing field. And unless the mayor offers a solution that enables outreach groups to feed the hungry poor, as God instructs us, he is acting immorally. Rather than address the problem, the Mayor is hiding it from view. This will only postpone the urgency of the need for the City to find solutions to social problems.
For example, does this measure include a measure, implementable in 30 days, that provides for sanitary homeless shelters to be constructed? Additionally, as a revenue producer for the city, on the backs of the homeless the selfsame city government is meant to serve, can the $150 fines be credited, at the least, to services for the poor and homeless, such as shelters, employment training and health services?
How nice for him to allow large family groups to partake of bodily sustenance on public property!
It is nice to see that more than 70% of readers do not agree with the Mayor’s decision to ban the feeding of homeless on public property, whereas nearly 30% do agree. What are YOUR thoughts?