I think it’s crazy. Lots of churches have regular pot luck dinners. what, it it’s a large church they can’t serve anymore? Sounds like harassment. However if they are doing this all day long everyday with lines of people on the sidewalk I can see why they might want to put a stop to it. But once or twice a month is nothing.

Perhaps there is more to the story that first meets the eye.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/11/10/20091110Church1110.html
“The decision follows an incident two weeks ago between two homeless men, which in some neighbors’ opinions, confirmed the deteriorating environment and neighborhood safety at the CrossRoads Church’s pancake breakfast
.
During the altercation, one man stabbed the other in the thigh with an ice pick. The injured man was treated at John C. Lincoln North Mountain Hospital. A Phoenix police officer was dispatched to the hospital, but the injured man did not want to press charges.
Pastor Dottie Escobedo-Frank said that, while it’s unfortunate that the man was stabbed, the event did not happen on church grounds.”
Later in the same article, some neighbors of the church are quoted:
• Mari Moga, neighborhood resident: “I am a parent and a neighbor. I am very relieved. I really fear for the kids’ safety. It’s great to offer help, but you have to look at the big picture. That subset needs a lot of services. The whole ice pick thing threw some air on the fire. It’s about the safety of the children and the neighborhood. It’s very inappropriate to allow that kind of demographic to go there for one meal.”
• Scott Crozier, neighborhood resident: “While the neighborhood strongly supports efforts to change the current paradigm that the homeless find themselves in, it’s important to find a holistic solution that can give them a hand up, rather than just a handout. I think examples of that are Andre House, UMOM (United Methodist Outreach Ministries New Day Center), St. Vincent de Paul Society and many others.
“The hope here is that the church will find it appropriate to spend its assets helping the homeless and not pursuing an appeal that could be characterized as an uphill battle. Their efforts here could be more appropriately used to help the homeless.”
• Paul Barnes, neighborhood activist: “I feel that the church had been disingenuous in working with the neighborhood. They could have worked with other organizations to feed the homeless. They didn’t seem to want to do that. That was unfortunate.”
It seems that this is a NIMBY situation (Not In My Back Yard) that was unfortunately exacerbated by a violent confrontation between two homeless people.
I note the following phrases in some of the neighbor’s comments:
- “…a holistic solution that can give them a hand up, rather than just a handout.” (A rather standard conservative phrase, no?)
- “It’s very inappropriate to allow that kind of demographic to go there for one meal.” (Which kind of demographic is that, the kind Jesus might have belonged to?)
It makes me wonder if there is more to this than just a nanny government official at work. Seems that a number of neighbors were of the opinion that “these kind of folks” shouldn’t be in their neighborhood.
And don’t you find it rather strange that a self-professed “fiscal conservative” would take such a nanny government position?
http://phoenix.gov/district6/d6profile.html
Ah well…takes all kinds.

“Local and state governments can’t afford to feed the homeless so why are they interfering with organizations that are doing it for them?”
Looks to me the government is doing what the people asked them to do. Should they have ignored the neighbors of that church?
I thought you were all for a government that responded to the demands of its citizens. What happened?

“Not in my backyard,”
. . . literally describes the powerful and elite people that put Obama in office.
Just for the record.