"Homeless and civil liberties advocates see food-sharing ordinances as one of the latest measures that "criminalize" homelessness in a misguided attempt to deal with the substantial homeless population in the downtown area."

I remember the Health Department took on the role of food-cops and started closing street feedings in the downtown area last summer.  It really put a dent in the availability of food for hungry homeless folks and although it was relatively easy for those who persevered to get a permit to hand out food, many did not, choosing instead to avoid the hassle -and the potential police interaction - alltogether.  

This of course was almost certainly what the intent of the crackdown was anyway, and to a large extent, it worked.  There have been a few who managed to obtain the necessary permits, and a few more who still sneak food out to folks when the opportunities present themselves, but Nashville's easy street feasts have all but disappeared.

Oh sure, Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays you can pick up some grub if you're willing to walk a bit for it; folks in the know will already be clued in on what I'm talking about.  Those that aren't....well, sorry, but I learned pretty quickly here (some would say not nearly quickly enough) that to bring attention to anything that might somehow even remotely "perpetuate the lifestyle"  is to bring about its almost immediate demise.  If you're hungry and on the street, you'll figure it out real quick.....

WAR ON POVERTY TURNS INTO WAR ON POOR

Kathryn Alfisi, Washington Lawyer - Homeless and civil liberties advocates see food-sharing ordinances as one of the latest measures that "criminalize" homelessness in a misguided attempt to deal with the substantial homeless population in the downtown area. Other ordinances restrict or make it illegal to panhandle, loiter, sit or lie down outside, and obstruct sidewalks. There also are mandated sweeps of places where homeless people live and destruction of their property. . .

Supporters of nuisance ordinances argue that people who live, work, or visit downtown are fed up with being harassed for money on the streets and seeing public parks turned into trash-filled encampments for the homeless. The ever-increasing

homeless population not only affects individuals, but it also hurts businesses and hampers downtown improvement efforts.

Although criminalization may not be entirely new, advocates say it began to become a more noticeable trend in the early 1990s, most likely in reaction to the homelessness crisis that started the previous decade. The 1990s also saw the beginning of downtown revitalization efforts in U.S. cities. While these efforts were successful in attracting new businesses and young, middle- and upper-middle class residents, the homeless remained. "I think a lot of the purpose behind these laws is to move homeless people out of downtown areas where there are a lot of people and a lot of development going on. Some cities say it's bad for tourism, some claim it's bad for business, and some claim that these laws deal with public safety or health issues," says Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

In 2006 NLCHP and the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) released a report. . . that detailed criminalization trends based upon the results of a 2005 survey of laws and practices in 224 cities. The report featured a list of the country's "meanest cities" for the homeless. A follow-up report is scheduled to be released by the end of 2008. The meanest cities list revealed the trend toward criminalization was widespread. The top 25 included large cities such as Atlanta and Houston as well as small cities such as Lawrence, Kansas, and Sarasota, Florida. It also included Boulder, Colorado, and San Francisco-cities traditionally thought of as liberal.

During the period between 2002 and 2005, the report noted a 14 percent increase in laws prohibiting sitting or lying in public spaces, a 3 percent increase in laws prohibiting loitering or vagrancy, a 12 percent increase in laws restricting panhandling, and an 18 percent increase in laws prohibiting aggressive panhandling.