Pages: 1

 

2009-11-13 04:48:33
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5872

A church in Phoenix has lost a court battle to run a charity dining hall for the city's homeless. The problem is, the court's ruling sets a precedent for all churches zoned in residential areas of Phoenix. While the ruling raises larger issues about the concentration of the homeless in cities, the immediate concern is the challenges the city's homeless may face finding a meal in the coming weeks.

The controversy surrounding the Crossroads United Methodist Church's weekly pancake breakfast began last spring when neighbors complained about an increase in the number of homeless people in the neighborhood. With the increase in homeless individuals in the area came an uptick in their undesirable behaviors, including "panhandling, burglary, public intoxication and vandalism, among other things,"
http://homelessness.change.org/blog/vie … e_homeless

So do tax paying citizens have a right to decide who they want living in their neighborhood?
2009-11-13 04:51:07
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

Macbeth wrote:

So do tax paying citizens have a right to decide who they want living in their neighborhood?
Not when by letting the homeless starve they think "panhandling, burglary, public intoxication and vandalism, among other things," will fall.

It's likely to rise if they aren't given support from the Church, which usually offer more than just a meal but some stability to these poor people.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-13 05:26:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Macbeth wrote:

A church in Phoenix has lost a court battle to run a charity dining hall for the city's homeless. The problem is, the court's ruling sets a precedent for all churches zoned in residential areas of Phoenix. While the ruling raises larger issues about the concentration of the homeless in cities, the immediate concern is the challenges the city's homeless may face finding a meal in the coming weeks.

The controversy surrounding the Crossroads United Methodist Church's weekly pancake breakfast began last spring when neighbors complained about an increase in the number of homeless people in the neighborhood. With the increase in homeless individuals in the area came an uptick in their undesirable behaviors, including "panhandling, burglary, public intoxication and vandalism, among other things,"
http://homelessness.change.org/blog/vie … e_homeless

So do tax paying citizens have a right to decide who they want living in their neighborhood?
based on what ya wrote, they are not living there, they are stealing, vandalizing, and being a public nuisance there. In this case yes they have a right.
2009-11-13 05:30:49
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7062|Moscow, Russia
so, all those bums had no problem moving in to get a meal? then they should have no problem returning to where they'd come from to resume whatever they'd been doing there.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-11-15 08:09:35
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6816|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

A church in Phoenix has lost a court battle to run a charity dining hall for the city's homeless. The problem is, the court's ruling sets a precedent for all churches zoned in residential areas of Phoenix. While the ruling raises larger issues about the concentration of the homeless in cities, the immediate concern is the challenges the city's homeless may face finding a meal in the coming weeks.

The controversy surrounding the Crossroads United Methodist Church's weekly pancake breakfast began last spring when neighbors complained about an increase in the number of homeless people in the neighborhood. With the increase in homeless individuals in the area came an uptick in their undesirable behaviors, including "panhandling, burglary, public intoxication and vandalism, among other things,"
http://homelessness.change.org/blog/vie … e_homeless

So do tax paying citizens have a right to decide who they want living in their neighborhood?
based on what ya wrote, they are not living there, they are stealing, vandalizing, and being a public nuisance there. In this case yes they have a right.
Yeah, Let's just let em starve.
2009-11-15 08:17:04
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6936

It's tough, what are you supposed to do? On one hand you can't let them starve, but on the other you can't have them ruining the neighbourhood for everyone else.
2009-11-15 08:22:57
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5985
Do what our past/current Mayors have done and relocate them all to a few shelters all across the city in the worst neighborhoods. Then give them a few hundred each month. We still see homeless people around but not so much anymore.  And some of them are 'fake' homeless(aka people who dress up in raggy clothing, get smelly/dirty and sit on the corner with a cup and a story meant to make you cry).

Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2009-11-15 09:58:16)

2009-11-15 09:06:15
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

A church in Phoenix has lost a court battle to run a charity dining hall for the city's homeless. The problem is, the court's ruling sets a precedent for all churches zoned in residential areas of Phoenix. While the ruling raises larger issues about the concentration of the homeless in cities, the immediate concern is the challenges the city's homeless may face finding a meal in the coming weeks.

The controversy surrounding the Crossroads United Methodist Church's weekly pancake breakfast began last spring when neighbors complained about an increase in the number of homeless people in the neighborhood. With the increase in homeless individuals in the area came an uptick in their undesirable behaviors, including "panhandling, burglary, public intoxication and vandalism, among other things,"
http://homelessness.change.org/blog/vie … e_homeless

So do tax paying citizens have a right to decide who they want living in their neighborhood?
based on what ya wrote, they are not living there, they are stealing, vandalizing, and being a public nuisance there. In this case yes they have a right.
Yes lowing we get it, you believe in pure economic responsibility, if you're born poor and you couldn't figure out how to get a decent living, tough luck and die.

What about the humanitarian and ethical terms lowing?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-11-15 12:35:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


http://homelessness.change.org/blog/vie … e_homeless

So do tax paying citizens have a right to decide who they want living in their neighborhood?
based on what ya wrote, they are not living there, they are stealing, vandalizing, and being a public nuisance there. In this case yes they have a right.
Yes lowing we get it, you believe in pure economic responsibility, if you're born poor and you couldn't figure out how to get a decent living, tough luck and die.

What about the humanitarian and ethical terms lowing?
You mean because you are poor you are releaved of all personal responsibility for your actions? you're poor, so feel free vandalize and rob from those that are not? Especially feel free to fuck over the very community that is trying to help you. You feel those that actually contribute to society through their hard work has no right to live in it without being robbed or vandalized? 
Gotta love  liberal logic.

By the way, I never said anything about letting anyone starve to death.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard