by Erika McNamara

In November, Hawaii will be the host of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. This summit has been a long time in coming since the last time the event was in the United States was in 1993. This is good for relations with the Asia-Pacific countries; good for the economy of the U.S. and it is especially good for the economy of the state of Hawaii. The state is set to receive $250,000 in grant money from the Economic Development Administration to accommodate the influx of people in attendance, which will include President Obama, the host along with Mrs. Obama, and 19 other heads of state for the summit.

However, in an effort to clean-up the homeless before the summit the Hawaiian Governor issued a 90-day edict. Part of this plan is to force individuals and organizations (churches and other social organizations) not to feed the homeless. That is right; the highest elected official in the state has commanded that there be no feeding of the hungry (not even cake?).

Well, at least not feed anyone in a park, on the street, or in an open space. Instead he has mandated that all feeding of hungry human beings be done only in a centralized place or designated building. This is, as one may surmise, an effort to corral people out of the way so that the world is not witness to the number of people who are indigent and hungry in an Eden-like spot (and for that matter the United States). But this should not be appalling or a surprise to anyone, because this is the usual course taken when any big event occurs in the United States—round up homeless people and pretend they do not exist for the day(s) the event occurs.

It is hard to believe that President Obama in 2009 said, “…we gotta work very closely with the states to monitor and to help people who are still falling through the cracks….it is not acceptable for children and families to be without a roof over their heads.”  It is hard to believe that the President is okay with this strategy to curtail feeding hungry, homeless and marginalized citizens—to keep the issue out of sight in his home state.

A better plan would have been for Hawaii’s governor to have addressed the homeless issue head-on. The grant money would have been put to better use improving and increasing the number of services, food, affordable housing, and shelter available to homeless individuals. Herding people to government-sanctioned feeding stalls does not solve the problem; really, it only forestalls the inevitable.

At least Hawaii, for the moment, is not as draconian as other places around the country, where feeding homeless people is against the law. (Yes you read that right. In some cities in the United States it is against the law to give food to people.) At the beginning of the year, Houston began enforcing a city ordinance that requires people to have a permit to feed homeless. Watch a video about the launch of the ordinance below.

The argument by the local government is that the enforcement of this ordinance is to “protect the homeless.” So, not allowing the public to feed the hungry and the homeless is for the own protection of the homeless. Huh? Last I checked people are required to eat to protect themselves from dying. The city of Houston does not agree. Nor do the cities of Cincinnati, Denver, or Myrtle Beach; there are countless other cities around the country creating restrictions on the right to food for the hungry and homeless.

But nothing compares to the law and recent developments in Orlando. The city has started to enforce a law that prohibits feeding more than 25 people without a permit, and this permit is only granted twice a year to any one person or organization. Needless to say, this enforcement sparked a firestorm in Orlando. The group Food Not Bombs continued to feed the homeless in the face of the ordinance and 15 individuals (and counting) have been arrested and jailed – for feeding people. It also must be pointed out here that all of this activity is in a park that is only a half hour drive from where dreams come true—only those dreams apparently do not include a meal for a hungry and homeless person.

The question is not why Orlando crafted this ordinance, or why these people breaking the law. The question is why are these people hungry and homeless? There must be a better solution to be had through some kind of cooperation between these organizations and the local governments. Sadly, at this point, the rights of the hungry and homeless are getting trampled in the shuffle of handcuffs and the in plain sight of the media.

Michigan, to its credit, has not restricted the rights of people to obtain food, with the exception of the recently imposed lifetime limit on Food Stamps. Michigan residents in need can rely on Food Stamps for 48 months. Total. For the homeless, there are many organizations around the state that provide food in parks, on street corners, and in abandoned lots to those that are hungry.

Every Saturday about 75 volunteers from the metro-Detroit area join the PB and J Outreach organization to pass out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and clothing on the corner of MLK Boulevard and 3^rd street in downtown Detroit.

Here in Ann Arbor, every Friday night at the Liberty Street Plaza members of the Vineyard Church and volunteers from the community provide food and drink to anyone in the plaza. However, these groups and individuals provide so much more than just food to the hungry and homeless. They provide a sense of community and an opportunity for the homeless and hungry to socialize with others without the fear of judgment. The aim of these organizations that provide food to the homeless is not to end homelessness, but to ensure that those individuals who are falling through the human services cracks know that they still matter. Giving someone a sandwich can’t end homelessness, of course.

There are many detractors and nay-sayers in Ann Arbor who question if there is actually a need to openly feeding the hungry and the homeless. The argument is that feeding homeless individuals only perpetuates the cycle of homelessness. This, however, is just not true. Homelessness is not caused by free meals in a park.

Meals provided in the open are for anyone who arrives at the spot and lines up. Even people with homes (working poor) are allowed to partake in the free food. Homelessness is linked to problems with accessing affordable housing, medical services, mental health issues, joblessness and low paying jobs, not because a group of church volunteers provides a free dinner.

In 1948 the United States adopted the Declaration of Human Rights. This document was enacted after the atrocities of the Second World War were made clear to the world. This adoption by the United States means that all of the articles contained in the in document are values that we endorse and believe in as a nation. In Article 25 of the DHR it clearly states that, “[e]veryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services….”

It is unfortunate that these this deep belief in human rights and human dignity have dropped off the radar of some politicos here in the United States.

FDR, in his 1944 State of Union address to the nation, challenged Congress and, in a sense, challenged the nation to work toward the human rights of U.S. citizens. President Roosevelt declared, “Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. And the right to food spell[s] security. And after this war is won, we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

Ann Arbor City Council, on the recommendation of a Task Force chaired by First Ward Council member Sabra Briere, wants people to give the homeless a printed card with the contact information of social service organizations instead of money. How is that so very different, in principle, than city government requiring that we refuse food to those among us who are hungry?