# NIMBY in Phoenix: Church Forbidden to Feed the Homeless **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790 "2009-11-16T17:01:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/101 "2009-11-16T23:20:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And what that says essentially is that churches are not allowed in residential neighborhoods. Because hosting congregational breakfasts or other meals is something that almost every church across the country does. No, that’s not what it essentially says. That’s not even close to what it essentially says. All it says is that one particular form of their charitable enterprises can’t be held at that specific location. One could make a good argument that the law should be changed to allow the church to hold these breakfasts, but there’s really no argument at all that the church should be allowed to ignore the law as it currently stands. If this enforcement is, as you have suggested, so terribly destructive to the community in which this church stands, then it should be a trivial matter to have the law repealed or amended to allow it to continue its services. Of course, there’s always the chance that the community might decide that they prefer not to have this church acting as a magnet for homeless people to their community. In which case, it seems that it would be the church itself that’s destructive to the local community, and not the application of zoning laws, as you have framed the debate. I’m not sure that would (or should) change your view on the subject at all, though. I’m also curious about your general attitude of religious freedom versus secular law. For example, the numerous building and safety codes in American society make constructing any building significantly more expensive than it would otherwise be. If someone wanted to construct a new church, but lacked the funds to build one that met building code requirements, should they be allowed to ignore those codes, on the basis that those codes (by making them unable to afford to build their church) are preventing them from exercising their religion? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/102 "2009-11-16T23:30:52Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, more efficient. Lets destroy community so the bourgeois can be kept away from the smelly homeless problem. Lets legislate everything! Stop those evil churches from feeding people, it’s a nuisance! > > Do not leave your pod! If you leave your pod you might subject someone else’s pod to the proximity of your presence! Their presence isn’t a problem, it’s when they break into my pod, or vandalize my pod, or stand outside my pod asking for spare change, or urinate in my pod’s back yard, or buy/sell sex/drugs in front of my pod that’s the problem. I’m not sure how moving them along destroys “community”. Quite the contrary, actually. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/103 "2009-11-16T23:58:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Their presence isn’t a problem, it’s when they break into my pod, or vandalize my pod, or stand outside my pod asking for spare change, or urinate in my pod’s back yard, or buy/sell sex/drugs in front of my pod that’s the problem. > > I’m not sure how moving them along destroys “community”. Quite the contrary, actually. What destroys the community is ending the church breakfast. The police doing their jobs is fine with me. Even if that means, “rousting” the homeless on occasion. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/104 "2009-11-17T00:03:43Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, that’s not what it essentially says. That’s not even close to what it essentially says. All it says is that one particular form of their charitable enterprises can’t be held at that specific location. One could make a good argument that the law should be changed to allow the church to hold these breakfasts, but there’s really no argument at all that the church should be allowed to ignore the law as it currently stands. If this enforcement is, as you have suggested, so terribly destructive to the community in which this church stands, then it should be a trivial matter to have the law repealed or amended to allow it to continue its services. Except that it’s not a charitable enterprise, it’s a communal meal that gives free food to everyone that shows up including homeless people. > [@](#): > > Of course, there’s always the chance that the community might decide that they prefer not to have this church acting as a magnet for homeless people to their community. In which case, it seems that it would be the church itself that’s destructive to the local community, and not the application of zoning laws, as you have framed the debate. I’m not sure that would (or should) change your view on the subject at all, though. Destructive to the neighborhood. You’re not talking about community, you are talking about the anti-thesis of community which is the desire to be left alone in your pod without the possibility of being tainted by outside influences. That’s not community. > [@](#): > > I’m also curious about your general attitude of religious freedom versus secular law. For example, the numerous building and safety codes in American society make constructing any building significantly more expensive than it would otherwise be. If someone wanted to construct a new church, but lacked the funds to build one that met building code requirements, should they be allowed to ignore those codes, on the basis that those codes (by making them unable to afford to build their church) are preventing them from exercising their religion? I get your point but I don’t think it’s the same thing as expecting an existing church to stop serving food at their existing location due to the fact that poorer people than generally live in the neighborhood might eat it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/105 "2009-11-17T00:33:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except that it’s not a charitable enterprise, it’s a communal meal that gives free food to everyone that shows up including homeless people. I don’t understand the distinction. > [@](#): > > Destructive to the neighborhood. You’re not talking about community, you are talking about the anti-thesis of community which is the desire to be left alone in your pod without the possibility of being tainted by outside influences. That’s not community. Sure it is. A community can be exclusive, and still be a community. A community can be completely isolationist, and still be a community. There’s no requirement for a community to interact with any outside element to still be a community. A bunch of survivalists on a compound in the middle of nowhere, who refuse to interact with anyone else, is still a community, regardless of any level of hostility or indifference to outside elements. > [@](#): > > I get your point but I don’t think it’s the same thing as expecting an existing church to stop serving food at their existing location due to the fact that poorer people than generally live in the neighborhood might eat it. From a moral or ethical standpoint, sure, there’s a lot of difference between feeding the hungry out of compassion, and building a firetrap because you’re cheap. But from a legal standpoint? What basis do you have for arguing that this particular law is inhibiting their ability to worship freely, that does not apply to any other law that regulates how a property is used or maintained? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/106 "2009-11-17T00:37:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t understand the distinction. Wow. I’m going to have to think of some way to explain it. Not to be offensive or anything but I see it as so basic that it’s harder to explain than if it were more complicated. > [@](#): > > Sure it is. A community can be exclusive, and still be a community. A community can be completely isolationist, and still be a community. There’s no requirement for a community to interact with any outside element to still be a community. A bunch of survivalists on a compound in the middle of nowhere, who refuse to interact with anyone else, is still a community, regardless of any level of hostility or indifference to outside elements. A community can be isolationist from people OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY, but I know hardly anyone in my apartment building, we are definitely not a ‘community’. We are simply people who live in proximity to one another. But I do not want to go too far into this as it’s a tangent. So yes the survivalists are a community. If there were a bunch of survivalists living in the same forest who avoided each other, that’s not a community. > [@](#): > > From a moral or ethical standpoint, sure, there’s a lot of difference between feeding the hungry out of compassion, and building a firetrap because you’re cheap. But from a legal standpoint? What basis do you have for arguing that this particular law is inhibiting their ability to worship freely, that does not apply to any other law that regulates how a property is used or maintained? From a legal standpoint I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, I am arguing from an ethical standpoint. Their right to worship as they see fit IS being infringed, even if it is legal to do so. This becomes problematic as you do not see the difference between a community breakfast and a charity. Did you read the blog post from the Pastor? That sums it up pretty well. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/107 "2009-11-17T01:10:27Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Wow. I’m going to have to think of some way to explain it. Not to be offensive or anything but I see it as so basic that it’s harder to explain than if it were more complicated. That obvious, huh? Well, you can see a little bit of the reason for my confusion at the end of this post. > [@](#): > > A community can be isolationist from people OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY, but I know hardly anyone in my apartment building, we are definitely not a ‘community’. We are simply people who live in proximity to one another. But I do not want to go too far into this as it’s a tangent. So yes the survivalists are a community. If there were a bunch of survivalists living in the same forest who avoided each other, that’s not a community. Absolutely true. But also, not particularly relevant, because you started this whole “people living in pods” thing in response to another poster suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with not wanting to have a bunch of homeless people hanging around where you live. The homeless people, in this case, being people from _outside_ the community. > [@](#): > > From a legal standpoint I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, I am arguing from an ethical standpoint. Their right to worship as they see fit IS being infringed, even if it is legal to do so. From an absolutely literalist point of view, you’re correct. But none of our rights are absolute, after all. As is always the case, when the exercise of one person’s rights can cause damage to another person, we have to weigh which person’s rights are paramount. In this case, we have a church who wants to give food to any and all comers, and some number of residents who don’t want to see their property values decline because there’s homeless people all over the place. Is there a way we can balance the interests of both parties? It seems to me that, if the church is allowed to continue having its breakfasts unrestricted, then there’s very little recourse for concerned home owners to protect their property value. They could sell now, and move somewhere else, but that’s a major disruption in their lives. Conversely, the church could either A) restrict who is allowed to attend their free breakfasts, or B) hold their free breakfasts in an area zoned for such activities. Admittedly, those are both impositions on the church, but I contend that they are relatively minor inconveniences as compared to the possible solutions for the home owner. As such, it seems to me that the fairest outcome here is the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. > [@](#): > > This becomes problematic as you do not see the difference between a community breakfast and a charity. Did you read the blog post from the Pastor? That sums it up pretty well. I confess, I haven’t read every link provided in the thread. Are you referring to the [dottiesdialog.com](http://dottiesdialog.com) link that you posted earlier? Just from the material you quoted from there, I notice this: > [@mswas's cite](#): > > The decision has been made that we are operating as a charity dining hall, and therefore are breaking zoning ordinance. So, to feed the hungry and poor on church property, according to this ruling, is not an allowed function of the church. In what way is “feed[ing] the hungry and poor” not an act of charity? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/108 "2009-11-17T02:23:31Z")
**Miller** The point of the blogpost if you read the whole thing is that incredibly vague. Basically the ruling says that any time a church feeds a poor person for free that counts as ‘charity’. The point being that they had an open breakfast. It wasn’t done for charitable purposes, it was done just to have a breakfast, but some people showed up. The problem isn’t that they held a breakfast, it’s that homeless people attended it. The pastor goes on to ask if this applies to serving coffee and donuts too. And therein lies the problem. The breakfast was not organized as a charity event, but there was charity going on there in that people who showed up just to get breakfast were not turned away, they were fed. So basically it’s ok to have a breakfast, it’s ok to have have a free breakfast even, as long as you aren’t feeding the poor. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/109 "2009-11-17T02:29:39Z")
[1 in 7 Americans food insecure](http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5AF42220091116) But as long as we protect the property values. I guess that’s fine. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/110 "2009-11-17T03:12:44Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What destroys the community is ending the church breakfast. Those must be some real kick-ass pancakes. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/111 "2009-11-17T03:17:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Those must be some real kick-ass pancakes. Get back in your pod, you are infringing upon my pod-space! You might smudge it’s shiny exterior with your cooties. What? Your feeding tube has stopped working? What do I care? Get away, don’t you have any sympathy for my property values? Can you please go starve to death by a factory? kthxbye. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/112 "2009-11-17T03:53:31Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Get back in your pod, you are infringing upon my pod-space! You might smudge it’s shiny exterior with your cooties. It’s a bit more problematic than cooties or smudges on our shiny exterior. > [@From the OP's linked article](#): > > …an increase of homeless people sleeping and loitering in alleys, incidents of burglary, aggressive panhandling, vandalism, public intoxication, prostitution and public urination… These things are far more destructive to a neighborhood than forcing a church to stop operating as a . > [@Rev. Dottie Escobedo-Frank](#): > > Or, are we just discriminating against people who are poor and who don’t have homes, because we don’t like what we feel when we see them? I’m pretty sure it has more to do with the sleeping, loitering, burglary, panhandling, vandalism, public intoxication, prostitution, and public urination than it does with not liking what we feel when we see them. > [@Rev. Dottie Escobedo-Frank](#): > > The real issue, is not that there are hungry people out there, or that we serve food in church, the real issue is that we are afraid. Afraid to reach out a helping hand; afraid to see what the economy could do to us; afraid to face our worst fears… Again, Reverend, I think the real issue is the urination, prostitution, etc., etc. They weren’t just serving food and having a worship service they were operating a charity dining hall. They were doing it an area that wasn’t zoned for it and were disrupting the neighborhood. Tough noogies. Odesio ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/113 "2009-11-17T03:55:22Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > [1 in 7 Americans food insecure](http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5AF42220091116) > > But as long as we protect the property values. I guess that’s fine. > [@](#): > > Get back in your pod, you are infringing upon my pod-space! You might smudge it’s shiny exterior with your cooties. > > What? Your feeding tube has stopped working? What do I care? Get away, don’t you have any sympathy for my property values? Can you please go starve to death by a factory? kthxbye. Yes, well, certainly this is an issue that exists only in absolutes. It is, after all, entirely impossible for one to be concerned about the value of their property, and still care about the poor and needy. It is much the same as how one cannot support the concept of freedom of religion, without allowing any religious group to do absolutely anything they please, without regard to how it effects anyone around them. If you’re at all interested in discussing this reasonably, drop me a PM. I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation when you’re like this. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/114 "2009-11-17T05:03:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It wasn’t done for charitable purposes, it was done just to have a breakfast, but some people showed up. And as soon as “some people” were fed, it became a charity. That’s what charity means, after all; giving something to those who could not earn it themselves. There’s nothing wrong with charity, of course, and I think the church’s welcoming attitude is laudable. But the church isn’t only welcoming people into the church, it’s welcoming people into the neighborhood, where people who may or may not be affiliated with the church, or who may or may not want the extra people around, live. It’s a macro version of me holding a barbecue in my friend’s backyard, handing out burgers to whoever asks for one. The giving attitude is great, but I’ve just encouraged people into a community I don’t necessarily represent. That’s not fair to the community or to my friend, who’s suddenly got uninvited guests tromping through his home. Call the police and have them run down every disruptive individual? Sure, you could do that, but when there’s many disruptive individuals, it’s far simpler to cut off the source. It is a messy situation, with innocents and good intentions on all sides. Someone sympathetic is going to lose the conflict, and in this case, the homeowners were simply there first. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/115 "2009-11-17T06:28:25Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > And as soon as “some people” were fed, it became a charity. That’s what charity means, after all; giving something to those who could not earn it themselves. So it’s ok to give people with money a free meal, but not ok to give people without money a free meal? This makes no sense at all. What is the fundamental difference between feeding rich parishioners and feeding poor ones? The point is they fed all comers, it wasn’t specifically for charity it was a breakfast before the worship service. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with charity, of course, and I think the church’s welcoming attitude is laudable. But the church isn’t only welcoming people into the church, it’s welcoming people into the neighborhood, where people who may or may not be affiliated with the church, or who may or may not want the extra people around, live. It’s a macro version of me holding a barbecue in my friend’s backyard, handing out burgers to whoever asks for one. The giving attitude is great, but I’ve just encouraged people into a community I don’t necessarily represent. That’s not fair to the community or to my friend, who’s suddenly got uninvited guests tromping through his home. Right, and ultimately it’s not a problem until you invite poor people, then it’s a problem. As long as you are bringing rich people into your church it’s ok. You can even feed them for free, whether or not they are a member of the congregation. > [@](#): > > Call the police and have them run down every disruptive individual? Sure, you could do that, but when there’s many disruptive individuals, it’s far simpler to cut off the source. Yes, that’s their job. And your solution is a great excuse to curtail all sorts of freedoms. > [@](#): > > It is a messy situation, with innocents and good intentions on all sides. Someone sympathetic is going to lose the conflict, and in this case, the homeowners were simply there first. How do you know? When was the church built? When was the neighborhood built? Being that it’s in Phoenix it’s entirely possible that when it was built the church was on the edge of town with nothing around it. That’s possibly true without the church being more than 20 years old. What we know of today as Phoenix was built largely within the last thirty years. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/116 "2009-11-17T06:29:29Z")
So please, everyone is ignoring the most important point. Please answer this question. Is it charity if you feed rich people for free as part of a church service? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/117 "2009-11-17T06:56:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > So it’s ok to give people with money a free meal, but not ok to give people without money a free meal? This makes no sense at all. What is the fundamental difference between feeding rich parishioners and feeding poor ones? The point is they fed all comers, it wasn’t specifically for charity it was a breakfast before the worship service. You’re projecting. As I said: > [@Bosstone](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with charity, of course, and I think the church’s welcoming attitude is laudable. > [@](#): > > Right, and ultimately it’s not a problem until you invite poor people, then it’s a problem. Again, projecting. It’s not necessarily poor people. It’s random people showing up in a residential community. I’d be pretty put off if people _bussed in_ to the community church next door to me, no matter where they came from. I mean, whatever the church may think, that comes off as pretty rude and assuming. “Hey, we heard you were giving out free pancakes to your congregation, so can we have some?” And yeah, if there’s a track record of the people who take advantage of the church’s charity also disrupting the neighborhood, then I don’t see that it’s all that unreasonable to ask the church not to encourage them in the first place. And since it’s running afoul of laws, that’s two strikes. It’s an uncomfortable solution, but there isn’t a comfortable one to be had. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/118 "2009-11-17T07:02:40Z")
You do realize that it’s very common for a church’s parishioners to live at a distance from the church right? You do know that almost every church in the country operates like this right? Do you really think that churches cater to their neighborhoods? They don’t. The church down the block from me is made up almost exclusively of people who do not live in the neighborhood. People go to church based on denomination, not physical proximity. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/119 "2009-11-17T07:03:30Z")
Then they should be even more respectful of the community they reside in. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/120 "2009-11-17T07:05:06Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Then they should be even more respectful of the community they reside in. There is respect and there is being told they cannot operate as every other church in the nation does. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=7)