Residents press council to curb large‑group feedings at Riverview Park; council asks staff to review rules and parks list

Residents near Riverview Park told the Melbourne City Council on July 22 that weekly large food distributions are interfering with family uses of the park, creating litter and encouraging people to linger after events. Several residents asked council to remove Riverview Park from the city’s list of locations eligible for large‑group feeding or to adjust permitted days and times. Speakers said pavilions adjacent to playgrounds have been occupied during farmers market hours and that attendees sometimes remain in the park into the evening.

City Attorney Adam explained the legal framework: federal courts have treated food distribution as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, and the city’s 2014 code language on large‑group feedings was drafted to reflect that case law and to balance competing public‑use interests. Under current practice, organizations seeking to conduct repeat feedings apply for special‑activity permits on a 90‑day schedule; staff then evaluates requests and conditions.

Public comment: Multiple neighbors described trash, trespassing, people camping on riverbanks, and interference with planned family activities. Speakers included Kathy Meehan, Rena Foley, Margo Pierce, Joanne Janko and Joseph McNeal. Several told council the park is safer and cleaner on other days of the week but becomes a focal point for concerns on Sundays when the feeding occurs.

Council action: Council asked staff to review the city’s list of parks approved for large‑group feedings and to report back with options. Specific items staff will include in the report are: which of the approved parks contain playgrounds, a history of complaints at each approved park, clarification on how the 90‑day special‑activity permit window is implemented in practice, and whether the city can reassign feeding dates or limit locations without running afoul of federal constitutional protections. Staff will also supply information on enforcement of park hours and recent police activity logs for the sites in question.

Why it matters: The dispute highlights tension between protected expressive activity (food distribution) and the city’s responsibility to preserve public parks for family and organized uses. Council emphasized staff should seek solutions that respect constitutional protections while addressing resident safety and nuisance concerns.

Ending: Staff will return with a report answering the questions raised by council and listing possible regulatory or operational adjustments the city can make to minimize conflicts at parks.