Council members voted 4-1 Tuesday night to approve an ordinance that would restrict public “feedings,” specifically of homeless people, to twice a year by any individual or organization. Those two feedings allowed each year would also require a permit that costs $50 for city residents and $75 for non-city residents. Violators can face a fine of $500 or 60 days in jail.
The ordinance also bans any feedings in any of the other city parks that do not have public restrooms–eight in total. City officials said that prior to Sims Park closing on October 16th, a church group from Zephyrhills was offering food every weekend to the homeless.
A number of people spoke during public comment at the meeting against the ordinance–many of whom do not live in New Port Richey, including James Bishop, a Land O’ Lakes resident and retired police officer who said he was the inspiration behind the feedings in the park. He said that he was addressing a need. “This is a picnic, a potluck that we bring as a group of families,” he said, “this is not an organization that said we want to come out and disrupt the public.”
Travis Morehead, another citizen that does not reside in the City, spoke out against the ordinance as well. Daniel Callaghan, who claimed to be a City resident (later information revealed that he is actually a resident of Pasco County), called the ordinance a “stake right through [the City’s] heart.” In the end, no City residents voiced opinions about the ordinance.
Mayor Rob Marlowe was applauded by a small group of audience members for saying that he was offended by being lectured by people who don’t live in the city. He said that the focus of the Sims Park renovations was to make a park for city residents and “not for people from outside the area.”
In an article from the Tampa Bay Times, James Bishop said that he plans to continue to offer food in the park once it reopens, without the required permit. “What are they going do,” he asked in the article, “check everyone’s ID to see who is homeless and who is not?”
The above is a factual article from NewsPortRichey. The following is an editorial on the decision made by New Port Richey City Council, by Jon Tietz, NewsPortRichey’s editor.
I do not care to weigh in on the policy decision of New Port Richey’s City Council in banning the feeding of homeless citizens in Sims Park–or any park in New Port Richey. What I’d like to discuss is the Council’s leadership in New Port Richey’s progress.
This is a legislative body that seems to wander from topic to topic on the whim of the City’s full time staff. There’s no leadership from the five council members. It’s certainly understandable–Council members are really only expected to make decisions on the information that is provided to them at the meetings. They’re also what I consider to be “maximum” part time. They have jobs for the most part–they can’t spend their entire day on city matters. City staff, however, can–but almost none of them live in New Port Richey. City Manager Debbie Manns is a rare exception. Why should these be the people that are setting priorities and agendas in New Port Richey?
Manns said in October when this ordinance was initially proposed that residents had been complaining, and the language of the ordinance cited “criminal acts” occurring during the feedings. She later retracted that language saying that there was no evidence to support it. Some public commenters said they had also asked for information on what complaints had been lodged. They said that no information had been forthcoming. My own experience with the City’s offices would corroborate the experience of these community members; it’s incredibly difficult to get information out of the City, especially on politically charged issues.
Where City policy seems to falter, and where Council and the City forget its limitations, is in enforcement. Large portions of the City’s charter and code go unenforced, including many permits for structures in the City as well as event permits. Rental units can be in extreme violation of City Code Section 6-130(h) and keep their rental permits. The City Council was in violation of its own ordinance for a good portion of 2014 after it continued to approve alcohol permits for events at Sims Park in excess of the amount allowed. They fixed it by rewriting the law two weeks later.
Then, in January this year, the Council approved a new ordinance making it illegal for anyone with a prior prostitution conviction to wave at or contact vehicles. That law seems to have had little or no effect, probably because it’s likely unconstitutional. None of this seems to bother any of the Councilors. In the meantime, they continue to pass laws that are near to or completely impossible to enforce, including the this new Homeless ordinance. In the Times’ article, James Bishop goes so far as to call them out on it. He said that he’ll continue to serve the homeless in violation of the ordinance. After a similar ordinance was passed in Fort Lauderdale in November of last year, 90 year old Arnolt Abbott was arrested for violating it by serving the homeless. Do we want this kind of national press on New Port Richey? NPR.org has already mentioned New Port Richey’s ordinance, and in that article quotes the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as having said that they will consider “steps a community is taking to prevent criminalization of homelessness” when it awards grants.
Why not lead the fight on these issues rather than cowering behind laws that have no effect? These laws are all clearly unenforceable, either for reasons of finance, public relations, or manpower. Why not provide these groups seeking to feed the homeless with facilities and permission in an approved location to feed citizens in need? Why aren’t City staffers encouraged to give their time to help out? Why not build a homeless shelter if it’s that bad?
Pretending the problem isn’t there is not leadership, it’s failure.
by Jon Tietz
That was an excellent editorial Jon. Well done!
As a former council member, I can understand the City’s desire to know what’s going on in its parks. But still, can’t we share? I don’t think it’s wrong that people from outside the city limits want to visit or use our parks. They are also probably spending their money in NPR as well.
Also, I felt the ordinance heavy handed, and I agreed with Councilman Philips when he said that the limit of only 15 persons per gatherings was too small…he suggested raising it to at least 100. Yes, I second that.
It’s not easy dealing with some of those ordinances one faces on Council, but a sense of humanity and compassion goes a long way in decision making.
I agree with Marilynn on all points here – and with Jon, and with Billy.
Having also served on Council for two terms, I agree that it is not easy dealing with challenging and contested issues. It also may be challenging dealing with remedies suggested by staff — maybe even more challenging. Dealing with the issues and suggested remedies is the business of the Council, however, and I suspect that Councilmembers know this. They probably also know their decisions impact many city residents whose voices they never hear, and would not have clue about how to lecture anyone about anything — even if given a chance.
In this regard, to Marilynn’s good note that a sense of humanity and compassion goes a long way in decision making, I would add that a touch of humility goes even further, and in that spirit, remembering the ancient adage: “There but by grace go I.”
This relates to those whose voices are not often heard at Council: those who are hungry, dispossessed, addicted, out of work, unhappy, prostitutes, infirm, poorly socialized — all of whom do live in the city, share our streets and sidewalks, visit our parks, and are our neighbors.
The Council may not have erred in its approval of the ordinance, but it seems reasonable to recognize that Billy took a rather courageous stand — one that minimally represented all our neighbors who really do benefit from the gift of sustenance shared by Mr Bishop and his friends.
Dell deChant
(spouse of Marilynn deChant)
First a correction: Dan Callahan is NOT a resident of New Port Richey. He runs a business out of his home in Veterans Village.
The different ordinances that have been passed over the last year are all pieces in solving a much larger puzzle. They may not do much individually, but they are most definitely part of a larger whole. The council is focused on taking our city back from those who want to trash it and live in the resulting filth. We still have a long way to go, but rarely does a day go by that somebody doesn’t stop me and tell me we are making progress.
Given the fact that four churches within as many blocks of Sims Park are regularly feeding the homeless in their own facilities, there is no reason to allow a Zephyrhills church to monopolize the park every single weekend. Why isn’t the Zephyrhills church addressing the issues of the homeless and hungry in East Pasco?
It certainly appears that the out of town opposition to the ordinance had absolutely nothing to do with the homeless and everything to do with control… Two of the out of town organizers were among the three most vocal opponents of the renovations in progress at Sims Park and the third member of their group was in the room. In my opinion, organizing opposition to the ordinance was “pay back” because they couldn’t get their way and stop the park upgrades.
Sometimes, it is the job of council members to be “the voice of reason against the howling mob”. The citizens of New Port Richey expect no less.
Four members of the council refused to be intimidated by non-residents who are satisfied with the status quo. If Mr. Bishop wants to keep driving over to New Port Richey so that he can make a big deal of feeding the hungry, I’d suggest he re-read the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matthew 6:1-2.
Rob Marlowe, Mayor
Mr. Mayor,
You’re correct that Mr. Callahan is not a resident of the City as originally reported. I was basing my reporting on what Mr. Callahan said at the meeting–he called himself a resident of the City. I will fix that issue.
You said, “The different ordinances that have been passed over the last year are all pieces in solving a much larger puzzle. They may not do much individually, but they are most definitely part of a larger whole.”
What else is an ordinance supposed to be other than a law that is enforceable? You can’t just pass laws and then not enforce them. You might as well not have them on the books (which you should not if they are not enforced). As I understand it (I am not a lawyer) it actually affects the enforceability of your other laws (making them legally less enforceable) and starts to bring up questions of selective enforcement–a “killer” word for municipalities.
Instead of discussing the merits of some ethereal “master plan” that goes along with the passage of these many ordinances over the last year, let’s ask a direction question.
**Why is Section 6-130 of the City’s not being used to revoke rental permits for delinquent properties?**
For the record, I was and still am against the $2.1 million in upgrades at Sims Park. I’d rather not spend taxpayer money on supporting events like the Chasco Fiesta–an event that I find drags down the City’s image. I think that money would have been better spent on upgrading infrastructure in the neighborhoods. You told me that you were working on a sidewalk north of Main Street on Congress? Has that happened yet?
Jon,
I think you’ll like the overall result of the park improvements. They are designed for our residents to enjoy year round, not just during mega-events like Chasco. Likewise, the plans for Orange Lake are designed for daily enjoyment by our residents, not as a foundation for special events.
I don’t have my Capital Expenditures Budget handy, so I can’t tell you when the Congress sidewalk is scheduled. I can tell you that a multi-use path is under construction from the Winn Dixie at Congress / Mass all the way down to the river and another multi-use path for Marine Parkway is in the design phase. Streetscaping of Madison is slated for the current fiscal year. That streetscaping project should address some very dangerous pedestrian issues.
Just to clarify what seems like an implication I lied about where I live–I was required to give my address which is New Port Richey–clearly the Mayor know I live in Veterans Village, but no big deal. What is a big deal is the Mayor stating that three folks who spoke against the ordinance were engaged in “payback’ toward the city because we are against the Sims Park improvement. We’re not. We are members of the West Pasco Historical Society who in a separate issue, tried to deal with the city informing us in August 2015 that the Rao Musunuru M.D. Museum grounds would be impacted by the improvements. The historical society held seven meetings seeking to work with the city’s ignoring our 25-year lease–taking property and most of our parking spaces–the city called that obstruction of their project. Council members threatened to throw us out of the park, or to build barriers to restrict entrance and exit, and basically acted like a bully toward elderly volunteers of West Pasco’s heritage. Ironically, the historical society was able to work with city officials including Mayor Marlowe to save perfectly healthy trees that were to be cut down just days earlier than being forced to accept the city’s dictates on our property. So, Mr. Mayor, you seek to accuse us of the vindictiveness and petty behavior you engage in, like banning me from participating in the historic walk as the person giving the history of Orange Lake. If I were as nasty as you say, explain to me why I volunteered to help out the city with this worthy project. As I told you and your council members, you’ve lost your way.
Mr. Callaghan,
My intention was not to imply that you lied about your address. I didn’t write down the address. At the meeting, my notes say that you said “My name is Daniel Callaghan, and I have lived in New Port Richey for X years.”
It was my misunderstanding that you had said you were a City resident.
Hello, it really isn’t a big matter–just didn’t like the implication. I’m so pleased to learn of your publication. I’ll be glad to keep you informed of upcoming events of interest like the Third Annual Veterans’ Day March Around Orange Lake on November 28 at 1:00 p.m. Take care, Dan.
I’ve already put it on our Community Events Calendar for you: http://newsportrichey.org/community-events-calendar/
Do please send me a press release–I try to publish as many local events as possible.
I attended the meeting. I do not live in New Port Richey. I frequent often to Sims and the local shop and restaurants. Thai Bistro being my all time favorite. I assume that the city would want as much help as they can get with the problems they face. Including quick store turnovers and homeless. I don’t understand how it is OK to want my money but not my input.I cannot understand why they wouldn’t want people to help with their issues and I definitely do not understand how an address in NPR is not considered a citizen of NPR. Throwing distraction from the issue does not terminate the problem. Why couldn’t they come to a compromise on where such an out pouring of love could be done within a distance that allows people to get there from the park.Instead we just shut them down. The ordinance states a 100 dollar fee for the permit and a 15 person limit of those eating in the park canceling out birthday parties,family reunions etc. The counsel member brought this up and was swiped under the table for having common sense. I hope this gets fixed at some point,I cannot say how annoying it is to get another headline addressing the stupidity running rampant in this state.For the sake of all get a grip on some rational thought.
Mrs. Heckler,
My notes show that the Council decided to reduce the fee to $50 for City residents and $75 for non-residents, making it the same fee as reserving a shelter in the park for a party. If your mailing address says “New Port Richey” but you have a zip code that is not 34652 or 34653 it is likely that you do not live within New Port Richey’s City limits. This means that you are not a “resident” of New Port Richey. It’s an important distinction because many area residents feel that they are New Port Richey residents. Of course, I’m all for expanding City limits to include these areas where appropriate–but I’m just the editor of a community paper. 🙂
This doesn’t mean that you don’t have a voice, but it does diminish somewhat the responsibility that the City Council has to you in that you do not pay taxes to the City nor are you one of their constituents (you can’t vote for them). I just wanted to clear that up for you.