> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Less talk, more action
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/less-talk-more-action/
- Published: 2006-03-24T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T17:23:24.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import, Homeless

It’s been 1 1/2 years since the City Council passed a law that was supposed to put more scrutiny on groups determined to feed the poor, the homeless and the hungry. Since that time, City Hall has spent untold hours and money fighting a lawsuit levied by civil rights activists who argue that limiting public feedings in parks is unconstitutional and violates a whole host of individual rights. They argue that it limits the right to assemble and that the law doesn’t differentiate between people sharing food, a family having a picnic or a group of homeless people in a food line.

Meanwhile, little, if anything, has changed as far as feedings in the city’s parks. It’s apparent that the whole issue has been an enormous waste of time and energy. And it’s obvious the law is ineffective.

Politicians will say that the intent of the law was to ensure a healthy and clean environment for the hungry who are fed by humanitarian groups. Elected leaders will also point out that the measure was designed to alert city officials of large gatherings so they could take necessary public safety steps, like traffic and pedestrian safeguards. Finally, they’ll contend the law was designed to encourage the groups to give out food at one of several local social service agencies so that the homeless are linked up with counseling and other aid.

The law was passed despite that there had been no reports of people getting sick as a result of the food. Pedestrian and traffic flow weren’t issues. There was no group complaining the “picnics” were dominating a specific space in a public area.

It’s no coincidence that the law was passed shortly after business leaders — who were part of a public safety task force — put pressure on the City Council to do something about the growing homeless population and the anti-social behavior they bring along with them. Many business owners argue that allowing free food to be handed out is just one more incentive for homeless people to stay put in Santa Monica.

The result was a pair of laws passed by the City Council in October of 2002\. The public feeding law forces charitable organizations running free meal programs in city parks to apply for a special events permit if the gathering is to include more than 150 people. Each organization also must receive a permit from the Los Angeles County Health Department, verifying their program follows stringent health codes and is not conducted more than three times in a 90-day period.

The City Council also approved an ordinance that allows businesses to post signs prohibiting sleeping in doorways and vestibules downtown, and in the commercial zones along Main Street, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.

But of course, like so many other laws here, neither one is really being enforced or complied with. Large groups — which sometimes involve in excess of 150 people — still gather in Palisades Park to eat twice a week. It happens again on the lawn right in front of City Hall every Saturday. The meal providers go unchecked by the county health department and none of them have permits from City Hall — not that it matters, because when 149 people have been served another line is formed and a new gathering is taking place.

The ACLU and other rights activists are using the law to wage war on Santa Monica for a number of reasons, although none are entirely clear. But based on the arguments made in the courtroom — like attacking the city’s ordinance on banners — it’s obvious activists believe Santa Monica’s government is attempting to quash people’s rights to free speech and assemble.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, Santa Monica government is so mindful of Constitutional rights that the quality of life for many residents has deteriorated.

So what we have now is yet another law that has gotten City Hall sued, but has had little effect in the grand scheme of things. Our elected leaders need to carefully consider whether the benefits will outweigh the costs before they pass laws that do nothing but pacify a specific group or entity.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 24, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/032406.pdf?ref=smdp.com)