I hate having to bring this up, as it seems I bring it up all the time. It's just that this is such a common theme, and permeates almost every single area of human life.
I'm sure you're well-intentioned, and I'm sure the "smart, experienced people" you speak of are as well. But you have to understand what this thing you're advocating is doing. You're making it illegal for ad-hoc, spontaneous communities to fix their own problems. Essentially, saying that only "parental-figure" government can fix it, via only the approved means. Because, "smart, experienced people" have agreed that this is the best way to do it. You're breeding dependence on the state, and you're commoditizing guilt/empathy/whatever you want to call the thing that is driving free-people to help their fellow man. So then, people can "buy" this feel-good fix by throwing money at the state that promises to take care of the poor, whether it ends up working or not. Instead of actually getting their "fix" by doing the work themselves, or giving it to an organization they feel is doing it the best way.
Politicians use it as a selling point, people feel good giving their money away and getting a fix from it, and social-workers get a salary and probably their own little fix as well. Hint, have a look at this (first search-hit, there were others) if you don't believe the obviously catastrophic failure of the state attempting to help these poor individuals: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-...
Calling it a noble effort is just a curtain over the real issue. The state making yet another market illegal and establishing itself as the "approved" monopoly.
This kind of legislation works. I've seen it first hand, in action, and it works. I experienced the support environment for the homeless population in Orlando before the laws, and I experienced the same environment after. There is a difference, and it is beneficial. I saw it, I heard about it, I experienced it, and I witnessed others follow the same path. So I know exactly what I'm advocating. But don't take my word for it, read the article and listen to people who live this every day and are also advocates.
Second, you've developed one heck of a straw man. I don't know where people think this law says you "can't feed/help the homeless". It never says that. It makes it illegal to reward destructive behavior patterns. If you want to help or feed the homeless you may do so! Just donate a couple dollars to your local shelter, or spend a night doling out mac n' cheese. Of course, now you can no longer do these things on your own terms, but then again this isn't about you (as in the royal "you"). This is about helping the people that get no help otherwise.
We're trying to encourage the use of the existing community solutions here, not ban them. This "ad-hoc" method of random gift giving that you seem to approve of is actively harmful to both the community and those it aims to help.
And actually (insert meme here), this removes state action from the equation, believe it or not. Police everywhere spend ridiculous amounts of time dealing with unscrupulous panhandlers, jerks who want to mess with the homeless, etc. etc. Now this law is probably just as unenforceable as "don't feed homeless people poison on purpose", but hopefully it creates a culture shift where people are pre-disposed towards more beneficial methods of activism, and the police don't have to worry about ne'er do wells messing with defenseless people, or people taking advantage of other's generosity. Nobody is throwing money at the state, nobody is getting a "fix". In fact, this places more burden upon people to take it upon themselves to support their local organizations, and places a heavier burden on those organizations (because now they have more people to feed! which is an excellent problem to have, because now we have people seeking real help, instead of just trying to make it through the day!).
I appreciate your gracious hints, but I highly recommend you see the problem for yourself instead of relying on knee jerk reactions and the top google result.
Many homeless shelters and aid groups are privately operated and privately funded.
The distinction is not between state-owned solutions vs. private solutions, the disctinction is between organized and structured solutions, vs. random hand-outs on the street.
I'm sure you're well-intentioned, and I'm sure the "smart, experienced people" you speak of are as well. But you have to understand what this thing you're advocating is doing. You're making it illegal for ad-hoc, spontaneous communities to fix their own problems. Essentially, saying that only "parental-figure" government can fix it, via only the approved means. Because, "smart, experienced people" have agreed that this is the best way to do it. You're breeding dependence on the state, and you're commoditizing guilt/empathy/whatever you want to call the thing that is driving free-people to help their fellow man. So then, people can "buy" this feel-good fix by throwing money at the state that promises to take care of the poor, whether it ends up working or not. Instead of actually getting their "fix" by doing the work themselves, or giving it to an organization they feel is doing it the best way.
Politicians use it as a selling point, people feel good giving their money away and getting a fix from it, and social-workers get a salary and probably their own little fix as well. Hint, have a look at this (first search-hit, there were others) if you don't believe the obviously catastrophic failure of the state attempting to help these poor individuals: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-...
Calling it a noble effort is just a curtain over the real issue. The state making yet another market illegal and establishing itself as the "approved" monopoly.