Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The law removes the burden of proving that operating a food kitchen in the park in a specific instance created a nuisance, just as having a speed limit law creates a presumption of reckless driving. If you're stopped for speeding, try complaining to the cop that he should instead be enforcing "laws that actually prohibit crime"; that always works.

Let's think about this comparison for a moment.

Speeding/drunk driving laws: based on legally binding contracts that apply to everyone that signed them (the little card in your wallet) preventing actions based on personal decisions that directly cause life threatening situations.

Don't feed the homeless in the park law: attempts to prevent already illegal activities that are based on the decision of a person that are somehow related to the completely benign actions of another party on those of a specific social class defined strictly by income level and resident status.

Does this sound right to you? A law based on a specific class of people and the harmless actions of another? Say, graffiti is a big problem, right? The action, itself, is already illegal, so we should obviously ban the sale of spraypaint to minors. Not all paint and not to everyone. Just spraypaint and only to people under 18. But, ah, minors don't have equal rights, so...

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The law isn't intended to "remedy the larger issue of homelessness"...and neither is handing out sandwiches.

And that is exactly the problem of these pointless band-aid laws that single out select races/classes/ages/genders of people and perfectly harmless actions -- They do about as much good for the community as, well, handing out packets of free food to the homeless.

They could have passed a law that prevented distributing free food in public places by anyone for public health reasons, maybe? Setup hours of operation for the park and no trespassing laws? There are plenty of other ways to accomplish the same goal.


Silly thought: it'd be funny if a disaster hit the area, causing the Red Cross to setup relief operations in the park to serve the suddenly homeless population of the city. Wonder if they would let the law slide then?

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Not in the least. Is there not already a law that prohibits "creating a nuisance" or "loitering" or "trespassing" or whatever problems people think are being created? What, exactly, do city officials think such a specific law is going to stop?



Gail Succo is simply going to go across the street and pass out sandwiches on the sidewalk. Will they then make it illegal to feed the homeless (and only the homeless, of course) on public property or in Las Vegas proper? How can you write a law like that? You can't distribute free things to people? You can only give out food to people that have a permanent address?

City officials and law makers need to stick to writing laws that actually prohibit crime. The problem of homeless people sleeping in the park is a bigger issue than someone handing out food and it isn't going to be remedied by banning the distribution of food in a public area to a specific class of people.

Funny... I thought the idea of a park was a place to loiter?

[capnhowdy]

sure they would. that's why this whole thing is so damn silly.

[footfootfoot]

All the world seems in tune
on a spring afternoon
when we're...

[wolf]

'Scuse me ... but what about the homeless who are on public assistance, get their checks at the drop-in center, and are eligible for housing programs like section 8 and do not make use of these services, prefering to stay in the shelter system, eat at the food kitchen and use their government supplied money for important things, you know, like crack and alcohol? This is not the typical 'anecdotal evidence' ... I know these folks personally. The ones who get tired of being on the streets tell me they are suicidal so they can have a roof, a bed, a shower, and three meals a day until the insurance or the county stops paying, or the next check is due tomorrow. Then they sign out and the whole cycle begins again?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

'Scuse me ... but what about the homeless who are on public assistance, get their checks at the drop-in center, and are eligible for housing programs like section 8 and do not make use of these services, prefering to stay in the shelter system, eat at the food kitchen and use their government supplied money for important things, you know, like crack and alcohol? This is not the typical 'anecdotal evidence' ... I know these folks personally. The ones who get tired of being on the streets tell me they are suicidal so they can have a roof, a bed, a shower, and three meals a day until the insurance or the county stops paying, or the next check is due tomorrow. Then they sign out and the whole cycle begins again?

Is that every homeless person? Probably not. How about we help the ones who will use the help? Pay them enough so that they aren't financially penalized for working? How can we, as a society, break the cycle? Should we do an "Escape from New York" or leper colony concept? What do we do?

[wolf]

But not to live.

[Ibby]

I was thinking about maggie's anti-semi-socialism and spexxvet's 'take money from the rich' bit, and had an idea:

When anyone over a certain (extremely high) value dies, a tidy chunk of their fortune (a third or so) should be taken to help the poor, and the rest can be given out however. This would not only help the poor, but also not take money away from those who actually earned it. Don't try to tell me Paris Hilton has ever earned a penny in her life...

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I was thinking about maggie's anti-semi-socialism and spexxvet's 'take money from the rich' bit, and had an idea:

When anyone over a certain (extremely high) value dies, a tidy chunk of their fortune (a third or so) should be taken to help the poor, and the rest can be given out however. This would not only help the poor, but also not take money away from those who actually earned it. Don't try to tell me Paris Hilton has ever earned a penny in her life...

It's called "Estate Tax", and it's already in place.

So we should take money from someone you're sure hasn't earned it, and give it to people who haven't earned it either but you're sure are more deserving. Administered by the government.

[Spexxvet]

Thank you for clarifying your misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You started off by representing that an adequate minimum wage would solve the homeless problem.

That misrepresents my words. Actually, I said

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.

Not solve. Are you disputing that there would be fewer homeless in the park if minimum wage were enough to support someone?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Asked what that "adequate" wage would be, you blew smoke for a while .

Like you are with your own solution. Kill them? Help them? You don’t want your money to help feed them. You don’t want them in your park. What’s your plan?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

then quoted about $10/hr (comparable to places like the UK and France, where of course they have utterly no problems with either unemployment or homelessness).

Actually, my thoughts were in general terms at the time, and when you demanded specifics I hadn’t taken the time to do any calculations. I thought about it, and posted an estimate.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Then when I pointed out that you'd trimmed the original scope of what was "adequate", you said "Well, of course that's not enough,

If you want minimum wage to be higher, suggest your own amount. I posted what I thought was a bare minimum.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The government should feed everyone and pay for it with wealth redistribution."

Actually, I didn’t bring the government into it at all.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

That's my point, exactly. It's not likely that $9.09 would do it. Before you bring up the $15.00 McBurger, the only way this will work is if the wealth gluttons settle for less. That's right - WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION (gasp). Some folks who make hundreds of million dollars a year need to cut down, so that there won't be starving crazy lazy criminals making an eyesore in your park. Because

It’s the CEO, who makes $100 million, saying “I can exist on $80 million, I’ll put $20 million toward payroll and raise the standard of living for my employees, who can’t support themselves on $9.00/hour. See? Look Mom, no government!
And it was an either/or statement. Either society/government provides for these folks, with tax revenue, or business does, not by raising prices, but by not being wealth-gluttons. Except for the mentally ill and the prodigal sons, of course.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Stick with one position, please. You got a foot in the door with "raise the minimum wage" and now we've slippery-sloped to "eat the rich".

Hey, There’s an option I hadn’t considered.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Like you are with your own solution. Kill them? Help them? You don’t want your money to help feed them. You don’t want them in your park. What’s your plan?

My plan is exactly what's happening: running a food kitchen in the park is illegal. My money is dedicated to feeding and housing me and my family, and sending my kids to college so they'll be more likely to not be homeless.

I'd like to have some left over to live on when I'm too old to work, but that's not looking too strong right now; taxes for well-meaning entitlement programs soaked up all my retirement savings while I was unemployed for a few years. (Funny, nobody wanted to feed me then, in the park or otherwise...they still waned *me* to feed *them*). Fortunately I had enough to meet the above vital needs until I could improve my skills and become employable again.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If you want minimum wage to be higher, suggest your own amount. I posted what I thought was a bare minimum.

No, I don't particularly...that's *your* idea. I lived though the Nixon administration, and I don't think wage controls are particularly useful. I prodded you to run the numbers to show you what a lame, ineffective idea it actually is.

Originally Posted by spexxvet

It’s the CEO, who makes $100 million, saying “I can exist on $80 million, I’ll put $20 million toward payroll and raise the standard of living for my employees, who can’t support themselves on $9.00/hour. See? Look Mom, no government!

Do you know such a CEO? I don't. That's a fantasyland scenario. You don't get to be a CEO by being altruistic.

Originally Posted by spexxvet

Hey, There’s an option I hadn’t considered.

Sure you have...it's implicit in your collectivist platform.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

...I'd like to have some left over to live on when I'm too old to work, but that's not looking too strong right now; taxes for well-meaning entitlement programs soaked up all my retirement savings while I was unemployed for a few years. (Funny, nobody wanted to feed me then, in the park or otherwise...they still waned *me* to feed *them*). Fortunately I had enough to meet the above vital needs until I could improve my skills and become employable again.
...

Didn't you watch the oreo video in ye olde video thread? A hell of a lot more oreos go to the pentagon than anywhere else. Don't blame high taxes on entitlements, blame the hawks.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by spexxvet

Is that every homeless person? Probably not. How about we help the ones who will use the help? Pay them enough so that they aren't financially penalized for working? How can we, as a society, break the cycle? Should we do an "Escape from New York" or leper colony concept? What do we do?

I haven't met those homeless people.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

I haven't met those homeless people.

How would you know?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

How would you know?

I ask them.

I interview homeless people on an almost daily basis. I do not see the happy, motivated, successful kinds of homeless people that are trying to improve their circumstances.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

And I haven't met the ones you describe.

I'm not surprised. You don't seem the sort of person that hangs around homeless shelters.