Phoenix at Odds with Church that feeds Needy

I bring this up because I am interested in hearing viewpoints on this, which is a very sticky situation. No knee jerk posts please. Please read the article before reaching a decision.

A church buses in and feeds the homeless on Saturdays in an well-to-do neighborhood. The residents are upset about it. The church has been told to stop it. It is now going t federal court. There are legitimate arguements on both sides.

The residents argue that the homeless are causing crime and breaking into cars. One moved in behind a house. I can understand if people are concerned.

On the other hand, is it just eliteism?

I am for the rights of the homeless, and anyone, regardless of church or not, that goes out of their way to take care of them is ok by my book. But where do you draw the line?

city at odds

In my opinion, yes this is elitism on the part of the residents. The church should be allowed to partake in charitable activities such as this, in fact more of them should!

However the only thing I have to question here is the religious aspect to the story. Would a secular charitable organization have the same rights as this church? Is there something like the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for non-religious services?

I believe there should be, charitable organizations need legal protections for exactly the reason in this story. Some persons do not care about the plight of others, and let's be frank here, I'm sure this has more to do with the eyesore and property values to the residents than safety does.

Get over it residents, let the church keep going, do the right thing.

reply to post by nixie_nox


It's a bit like the sign that says don't feed the pigieons.

Why don't the churches put these people up in the churches or in the homes of the congregations ?

Some of these churches turn over enough cash to buy most of those people a home each

After they bus them in and feed them why are they not bussing them back to where they picked them up? They just dump them into the neighborhood?

Build it and they will come.

This reminds me of a story that took place in one of the affluent suburbs of San Francisco.

It seems like this well to do community decided that they wanted to help the homeless. So they build a homeless shelter and a center to feed the homeless.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE the homeless people came. They liked the shelter and the free food.

However the affluent left wing people who lived there didn't realize what the homeless people were like. Soon the business were complaining that the homeless people were scaring off their clients. The tourists didn't particularly want to run the gauntlet of unwashed masses to go to the galleries and have an expensive coffee.
Even the locals didn't really like having the homeless near them.

The realization came to the town.... It's great to help the homeless just help them somewhere else.

This is irresponsable on the churchs part. Let them feed the homeless where they are. The church has no right to bring folks from outside the area and subject the folks that live there to anything. Not even under the cover of doing work like this.

The church should rent an area to do this, away from these sort of conflicts. Use the brain a bit. Be wise as serpents and harmless as lambs.

The church could also be held liable for anything that may transpire.

reply to post by nixie_nox


All I can say is that you are right ... There are legitimate arguements on both sides of it ...

Originally posted by damwel
After they bus them in and feed them why are they not bussing them back to where they picked them up? They just dump them into the neighborhood?

If you had read the article it clearly states:

For the past year, a bus has given rides to the church to hundreds of people from their spots among bushes, in alleyways and the barren hillsides overlooking the city. The church says they get bused back after the breakfast.

It depends on if it really is violating zoning laws or the church is really exempt from these laws... I'm not sure I got a clear answer from reading the article.

"My guess is if they were serving a pancake breakfast to local neighborhood folks that aren't homeless, then nobody would have a problem."

I agree. I tend to think that the residents in the area just don't want to be reminded of the situation. Maybe they don't want to feel guilty or whatever. I don't know. I advise they offer to help the church and get over themselves.

The church says they get bused back after the breakfast.

Well yes there are two sides to this story and two opposing views. I live within 100 yards of our cities soup kitchen in a very bad area, prostitution, drugs, and all sorts of other stuff is prevalent in this area but no one doesn't feel safe.

If based on looks and dress, most would be petrified to walk to my house, but for those that know the truth, have no problem.

And as per the article mentioned in the OP:

"The neighborhood should come down and find out who we really are," said Robert Oswald, 53, who has been homeless for seven years and chooses to live on a nearby mountain. He said the church has helped him stay off drugs and alcohol. Kenny Moe, 53, said church members helped get him off the streets and kick his 30-year drug habit. Now he attends the breakfasts to support people still in need. "This ministry is not about food, it's about giving people hope," Moe said.

The church is indeed doing a good job and although one homeless person was caught with child porn living in an alley, well isn't that what the police are for? Not judging but maybe some in their affluent houses also have child porn under their beds.

There are bad people in all walks of life, but I have found that there is more good in the indigent and downtrodden than in the "average" person.

Maybe the resident's should indeed go for a pancake breakfast, talk with those attending, and perhaps, they would hear stories that would alleviate their fears...

reply to post by nixie_nox


Well, this is definitely a diverse event happening, homeless people being fed, a church doing it, and residents being angered by it because of the crime rate rising.

I think the church is doing it with well-meaning intentions, however I do not know the church or the parishioners personally, they could have an agenda, but who knows.

The rise in crime would lower property values, which is already an issue because of the economy.

Why not set up a tent facility (for cooking, not a tent city), once a week, take it down after the event, or the church build a homeless shelter, and make a more permanent fix?

Personally, I work two, three, and four jobs, when I can, I'm not going to feed anyone.

It should be teach them how to feed themselves, organize those homeless to learn how to cook, work with them to make the food, and give them a sense of well-being.

The majority of homeless people, are there because they have no choice, they stop taking their medication, or they lost their only avenue to work.

I tried giving money to homeless people and got sick and tired of seeing each and every one of them either get booze, cigarettes, or Lottery tickets.

If you ask for money for food, buy food, or do not ask me, period.

Now, I will not give anyone homeless money, not even if I can tell their starving.

I will point them to the local homeless shelter and or offer a ride there.

The majority of them curse me out because they do not want that, they want money.

This is my personal experience with homeless, and I am not saying it is nationwide like that.

However, in my local experience, I'm a cold-hearted unsympathetic individual.

Empathy, not sympathy, offer directions, and or a ride to the homeless shelter.

Nothing more, nothing less, without judgment, via experience of having seen this firsthand.

If the church is bringing homeless into this community, then they are indirectly, but ultimately responsible for those home invasions, break-ins, and any other crimes that happens, because they opened an avenue where the homeless might not have known about an opportunity to steal, if they had not been bussed through those communities.

Take the food to them, not them to the food, there's little to no reason to bus them anywhere.

This is giving these church-goers a feeling of safety with their church, yet reducing the safety of the community around it, creating more problems then it is worth.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Now, I will not give anyone homeless money, not even if I can tell their starving.

I won't either, but I sure will buy them some food. There's one exception and he's a homeless guy who lives in the woods near our place. I give him money because I know he's going to use it to live.

I'm a cold-hearted unsympathetic individual.

pffft! Stop lying! I know better.

If the church is bringing homeless into this community, then they are indirectly, but ultimately responsible for those home invasions, break-ins, and any other crimes that happens, because they opened an avenue where the homeless might not have known about an opportunity to steal, if they had not been bussed through those communities.

That's a really good point. But I tend to hold the homeless person who broke in ultimately responsible, not the church.

Take the food to them, not them to the food, there's little to no reason to bus them anywhere.

This would certainly seem to solve the problem. If they're transporting the people to and from the church (two trips), they could save money and energy by transporting the food to the people (one trip).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I won't either, but I sure will buy them some food. There's one exception and he's a homeless guy who lives in the woods near our place. I give him money because I know he's going to use it to live.

Well, when you see the same individuals, you tend to not do that.

I was a Security Officer at a hospital for a while and dealt with them that way too, and the local Law Enforcement cycled them through our facility, most of the time it was for a meal, abusing the system, but Law Enforcement was doing it to clean up the streets, and as a kickback service to the local Psyche Facility.

I worked there too for a limited amount of time, I asked questions, dug deep.

I found a local conspiracy between Law Enforcement and the Psyche Facility.

The state of Florida had to pay for each psyche patient who could not pay their way.

With a lack of insurance, no homeless could pay, it guaranteed Florida paid the Psyche Facility.

Corruption, kickbacks, and homeless people, imagine that, sure sounds like Rudy Giuliani.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
pffft! Stop lying! I know better.

Come on now, you're not homeless, and you're my ATS sweetheart.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's a really good point. But I tend to hold the homeless person who broke in ultimately responsible, not the church.

Yes, I agree with you, which is why I said indirectly, the church has culpability.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This would certainly seem to solve the problem. If they're transporting the people to and from the church (two trips), they could save money and energy by transporting the food to the people (one trip).

I agree, save gasoline, save moving the homeless through the community, and take the church to them, and over all, making awareness of the situation.

The church could even get the local Law Enforcement involved, for protection.

The issue with this will be a lessened amount of homeless because they might fear them.

A minimal show of presence might help this situation though.

Get everyone involved, even those homeowners, and City Hall.

Make it a community effort, instead of a church one, and everyone wins.

How ironic it is . Up scale neighborhoods usually republican .

We have had a lot of people screaming bloody murder over welfare and food stamps . Tea parties


What is it now first the government shouldn't help people down and out . Now the religious people shouldn't either . Well whos job is it any how ? Really it is really everyone s job to help out a little . I have bought plenty of bigmacs and chicken for hungry homeless people .

I find it a noble cause what this church is doing .

The law suit on the other hand is hog wash BS chicken biowaste !

Thank you all for the wonderful responses. This is much like ATS in the old days.

I had to think about it for a bit before answering. That and I am tired, so the process is slow. *smiles*

I have lived in Phoenix. It is the conservative flagship state. I lived in less then ideal neighborhood and a better, though not Scottsdale, neighborhood.

As for the crime, well there is theft and burglary everywhere in Phoenix. If it isn't bolted down, it is fair game.

Since AZ is a open carry state, or a three hour class gets you a conceal carry, you don't hear a lot of person on person crime.

Because EVERYONE carries. Even grandma. But that makes non personal crime rampant.

I remember a supervisor coming in one day and commmenting that someone stole her solar power sidewalk lights. I mean really.

We had our cars broken into numerous times. It was unreal. Highest cartheft in the US I believe.

Unless they have proof otherwise, adn they might. To blame it on the homeless may just be an excuse. It could be anybody.

As for the child porn. Like Tribe said, that could be anybody too.

I gather the the reason they bus people in and out is that not all these homeless people reside in teh same places. They probably have to go all over the city and gather them.

Maybe all the residents should chip in and rent a place if they are so concerned about it.

I think that if the church should have to move where they feed the homeless, then a neighborhood ordinance needs to be passed that no one can gather and hand out food to anyone that is non-homeless.

It's a case of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

I don't think it's just property values that these suburban people are worried about. They are actually afraid of poor people, especially minority poor people. They have moved far out of the city (and sometimes into a gated community) in order to avoid contact with them. Many actually believe that if they have any contact at all with the "underclasses" they will surely be robbed and/or raped or encounter some other kind of violence. This, I believe, is a sort of projection (it's what they would do to the rich if their situations were reversed) but nevertheless the fear is there.

The suburbanites are actually practicing a form of apartheid in which they are trying to insulate themselves as a class permanently from the underclass. That's why they move so far out and into places where everyone else is affluent. They want to associate only with "their own kind."

In my area it's the residential homes for the disabled and mentally ill that have trouble finding a neighborhood. Everybody believes that in principle these homes should exist,
but NIMBY. The result is these homes have to locate far out in the country, where the residents are cut off from all contact with people who are not in their immediate house, thus defeating the purpose of these homes, which is to help the disabled integrate into the rest of society.

I say let the church continue to do what it's doing.

The privileged class that surrounds it will undoubtedly not die from contact with homeless people, and could stand to benefit from living in a somewhat more diverse environment. They need to learn how to live with the rest of the world.

reply to post by Sestias


IN my old neighborhood there is a similar battle going on. My elementary school became a nursing home. The nursing home left and now is being debated as a home to treat mentally ill. It is amazing how many people are against it.

As an advocate for mental illness, I am floored by this. My arguement is this, better to have them treated, and know they are being treated, then to have them randomly wandering the community not treated at all.

Having lived in all kinds of US environments, from the good to th bad to the ugly, I rarely had a problem with a facility, but neighbors, yes.

the good intention was to pick-them-up from points around the valley
and then return them after the meal/breakfast... ok
but once a feeding venue gets known, there will be a lot of beggar types who will migrate and Squat --- setting up their shopping carts with tarps
or else living at the underpass.


the exact best thing the Phoenix church could have done is to provide resources to the existing St Vincent de Paul feeding venue, down in the seedy, closed industrial area in Phoenix...
where a community of homeless have staked out their territories among the short distanced local 'Parks', underpasses, and derelict buildings... so they won't need to walk far for their next meal.

back in the early '90s, i was among the feeders at the St Pauls kitchen,
and i swear, no more than 5' distant- in front of me, a man was knifed in the back for no apparent reason... the poor soul yelled and staggered across the street, fell down, then lay there until the ambulance came,
i reckon the cops on the perimeter of the hungry crowd called for the Rescue vehicle.


nixie_nox, were you knowledgeable with the St Vincent de Paul kitchen on ? Jefferson. or Adams (well, on one of the downtown President Streets)
back then one would need to live north of Camelback to be faintly safe
...but i mostly lived either on 7th Ave (very near Chars Has the Blues) or down in the barrio on 26th, 2 streets below I-10 (400 miles E. of LA)

hey, no reply necessary


[edit on 2-3-2010 by St Udio]

I live outside phoenix and have been to that area many times and have met a good number of the homeless folks the church helps out and about 75% are homeless veterans which burns me up in itself! Where has our humanity gone?