Melbourne council denies ordinance that would have limited large-group feedings in parks

The Melbourne City Council on Nov. 13 rejected an ordinance that would have imposed a rotating schedule and new permit rules for large-group feedings in city parks, a measure that drew hours of public comment from volunteers, residents and people who rely on the weekly meals.

Ordinance 2025-50 (amending chapter 42 of city code) was presented on second reading. Staff described corrections and the addition of Southwest Park to the rotation list; staff noted the ordinance came from council direction, not an application. Residents and volunteers, many affiliated with Food Not Bombs, urged the council to postpone but ultimately urged rejection of the new rules. Speakers said the proposal would harm people who depend on the weekly shares, risk reducing attendance when share locations are moved, and raise constitutional concerns about compelled expressive conduct.

Food Not Bombs volunteers explained they clean up after events, operate quietly and serve people who have little internet or transportation; one speaker cited a Fort Lauderdale case in which a similar municipal rule resulted in significant legal costs. Residents including parents and volunteers described the social and practical harms that would result if shares were forced to rotate or face increased permitting barriers.

Councilmembers asked staff whether residents and the meal organizers had directly discussed compromises; staff said some communications had occurred but not full coordination. After deliberation — during which some councilmembers said they initially favored postponement but then changed positions — Councilmember LaRusso moved to deny the ordinance and Councilmember Smith seconded. The roll call recorded council support (Bassett, Hanley, Kennedy, Smith, LaRusso, Vice Mayor Newman) and the motion to deny passed.

What council did: The council denied ordinance 2025-50 on second reading and will not implement the proposed rotation of parks or the associated permit changes. Staff had said both the existing ordinance and the proposed language carried litigation risk; opponents warned the city would likely face lawsuits if it tried to limit the group's activity.

What’s next: The denial preserves the existing permitting regime for large-group feedings. Councilmembers discussed the possibility of additional dialogue between residents and groups to address any localized issues (trash, overlapping uses) through non-legislative measures or targeted operational fixes rather than citywide ordinance changes.