The "homeless feeding law"

On a gut level, upon seeing the phrase “homeless feeding law” describing this proposed ordinance, I immediately felt that the proposed law distinguished the homeless from other people. I could not shake the image of the signs in national parks: “Please Don’t Feed the Bears,” nor the disturbing feeling that the intention of the law was not that different from the national parks’ intentions.

If you read the proposed “homeless feeding law,” you will see it doesn’t just apply to regulate the provision of food to homeless people. Technically, it applies to anyone serving food to other people without charge, on public or private property. Carried far enough, it could apply to the mother serving snacks to her child’s class at school (public or private), to everyone having a picnic and sharing food with their friends and family at a City or County park picnic shelter, or to the people providing an entrée to be served at a church pot luck.

From a practical perspective, I have two questions: 1) If a course which is free of charge is required, who will provide the course, and who will pay for them to do so? 2) Is the goal of this law to protect the homeless from food poisoning, or to make it so burdensome for the organizations that feed the homeless people to do so that they will move their operations (and with them the homeless people) elsewhere? From the human perspective, I just wonder, is it right to impose these burdens on people and organizations who want to help those less fortunate among us?

Michelle Niemeyer, Coconut Grove