I think this serves as a great example of what we discussed
in class today concerning Mitchell’s article. I think it’s pretty crazy how the
law is ‘slightly’ sneaky about the exclusion of homeless people from public
space. By banning “public food sharing,” it can’t be considered an outright ‘no
homeless allowed’ mandate, but by restriction on the activity in the space,
it’s made clear who isn’t desired in that space. This story does support Mitchell’s main
argument from his article that public space is increasingly a space of control
and exclusion. The implementation of this law makes this explicit. This case is
an example of “representations of space” since there is a clear appropriate and
inappropriate activity for this space which also indicates that there is a ‘right’
and ‘wrong’ public for this space. The simple presence of the law regulating the
activity in public space demonstrates that the space is increasingly becoming
more “planned” and restricted than it was before.
On the other hand, this law doesn’t seem very sustainable
considering the people facing legal consequences are charity workers and
community servants. I have to admit, the first thing I felt when I read this
was sympathy for the 90-year old man (which is probably also the only reason
why this story is in popular media). The law was just passed last week and it’s
already making national news. The arrested are already threatening a lawsuit.
This potential lawsuit is an excellent catalyst for a discussion on the topic
of public space and what’s appropriate within. It would be interesting to follow up on if
this story continues to stay in the news.
I have questions concerning the space where this activity
took place and if feeding of the public was already occurring here. One article
says ‘a park’ and the other says it occurred in front of the courthouse as a
protest. Either could be spaces where homeless already exist. There could be
something here but neither article really lets on.
I agree with you completely Maria, this goes perfectly with what we had discussed in class. My first reaction to the newsreel was that this was crazy. Which I still believe it partially is. Reading over the USA- Today article, the rules placed on the community to abided by are just ridicules, “… feeding sites cannot be within 500 feet of each other, that only one is allowed in any given city block and that any site would have to be at least 500 feet away from residential properties." If these sites are on governmental owned areas okay, but if they are on private property who is to say whom one is feeding people or not? Such as churches, within the city they can be from street to street. Yet this limits only one church in that block area to be able to feed people. This law is creating isolation and power control over domestic and private areas of land and people.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that a law is in place over giving another human food for a day.
In reaction to the pastors getting arrested, I think it seems wrong but as you I question where the feeding took place. If it was in front of the courthouse that wasn’t the smartest, but it made a point, which may just be he intent to bring attention to this issue.