The DID NOT put up warning signs, they wanted to drench the sleeping homeless and wet their belongings.
You keep paying down irrelevant information about unrelated topics, when this church and it’s actions are the topic.
They have been busted, God knows how much money they paid for all this or why they wanted to get the homeless wet, rather than put up a warning.
Meaning the homeless are slow-learners? After the first hour they should have known to stay away. Any stray dog would have learned that lesson. Surely the word got around.
Scores of business in the Financial District and in the Restaurant/Entertainment District have used, and are still using, sprinklers. Where the Cathedral differed from this, was in their commitment to permit the homeless to use other facilities -- available right there, right on the Cathedral grounds (!), AND to offer them more comprehensive help in terms of safe, clean shelters, meals, medical care and substance abuse treatment.
How do you protect your flock from being verbally harassed, physically accosted, and exposed to unsafe, unsanitary conditions (I'm including the homeless, themselves, in the wider definition of "flock")? None of us wants the obvious other alternatives involving dogs, barbed wire, and law-enforcement "come-along holds."
My solution would be involuntary admission to residential treatment facilities, but that has not been legally possible for decades now.
If among these unfortunates were your mentally-addled aunts or old military buddies, how would you want them treated? Especially if they wouldn't come with you voluntarily?
Honest question. Looking for humane answers, as, I think, most of us are.