Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

[MaggieL]

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?

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.

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

[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?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

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) ...

An appealing theory, but bogus. The traffic laws apply to you operating a motor vehicle even if you are not licenced. They're laws, not the considerations of a covenant.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

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... pointless band-aid laws that single out select races/classes/ages/genders of people and perfectly harmless actions --

You're begging the question again. The law creates the presumption that the actions are not benign. Obviously the people living near the park don't think it's "benign" and "harmless" to run a seven days a week mobile food kitchen in their park.

...they said it would be enforced against people like Ms. Sacco, whose regular offerings, they said, have lured the homeless to parks and have led to complaints by residents about crime, public drunkenness and litter.

Apparently folks in Orlando feel the same way about it.

About a dozen downtown residents and business owners spoke in favor of the rule. Eric Kerlin said people have used his yard and bushes as a bathroom and damaged his property. More urgently, "I'd like to use the park without fear of being harassed or robbed."...[O]pponents included well-known homeless charity groups, such as The Ripple Effect, and lesser-known ones, such as Tailgating for Jesus and the First Vagabond Church of God.

I wonder how far from the park Ms. Sacco lives? Available evidence suggests that she actually lives in Reno. Certainly far enough not to be bothered by any nuisance she creates in the neighborhood of the park; for her that's just a political stage.

The NYT article also mentions "Food Not Bombs" with the implication that they're a separate group; it would appear that that's not the case since Sacco and her brother run the Southern Nevada FNB chapter. Her brother apparently at least lives within 20-30 miles of the park in question....still a comfortable distance away.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You're begging the question again. The law creates the presumption that the actions are not benign.

If I hand out free sandwiches to people in a park, it is absolutely benign and is not a criminal offense. What the person I give the sandwich to does with their time is their decision, not mine, and any crimes they commit in the area are of their own doing, not my own.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Obviously the people living near the park don't think it's "benign" and "harmless" to run a seven days a week mobile food kitchen in their park.

Wow, it must suck to live near a public space where people do public things. Maybe they would feel better if they moved to a secure gated community with a private park where only residents are allowed and they can go about their daily stroll without having to look at another person that has an income lower than half of theirs. Living in a downtown area near an open, public park is their decision, their choice, and absolutely no one is forcing them to live where they are. I've lived in neighborhoods where conditions changed and crime went up, but I've never felt compelled to lobby for a law that would shut down the new Dollar Store or liquor store on the corner that that was attracting "undesirables" with perfectly legal transactions. I did what a normal, sensible person would do: I moved.

Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.

If I elect to give resources to others, it is quite simply none of the government's business as to what the economic standing of the recipient is or how many people I elect to supply, no matter how overly concerned local residents are about their precious property values.

This isn't to say what Succo is doing isn't annoying and that local residents don't have a right to be pissed off about it. Still, there is nothing illegal about it. A law, however, that dictactes "you cannot [perfectly legal action] to a person who is of [race/gender/economic standing/etc]" most certainly is.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

If I hand out free sandwiches to people in a park, it is absolutely benign and is not a criminal offense.

What, you mean it's not a felony? It's certainly against the law.

And it's only "benign" in the sense of 2a...certainly not 3b.

1 : of a gentle disposition : GRACIOUS <a benign teacher>
2 a : showing kindness and gentleness <benign faces> b : FAVORABLE, WHOLESOME <a benign climate>
3 a : of a mild type or character that does not threaten health or life; especially : not becoming cancerous <a benign lung tumor> b : having no significant effect : HARMLESS <environmentally benign>

Maybe they would feel better if they moved to a secure gated community with a private park where only residents are allowed and they can go about their daily stroll without having to look at another person that has an income lower than half of theirs. Living in a downtown area near an open, public park is their decision, their choice, and absolutely no one is forcing them to live where they are.

I've seen the area on satellite imagery...it's not "a downtown area"...not that that's particularly relevant.

Look, it's their municipality, they decided they don't want food kitchens in their park. Nobody's forcing you to go there...are they supposed to move because some activists from out-of-town decided it would be a cool place to operate and you think it should be OK?

If you want to run a food kitchen, it's incumbent on you to find a place where that's permitted.

This isn't to say what Succo is doing isn't annoying and that local residents don't have a right to be pissed off about it. Still, there is nothing illegal about it.

Uh...yeah, it is illegal: they passed a law against it (and you just admitted it's not benign in the 3b sense). "Legal" doesn't mean "Kitsune thinks it's OK", it means "in accordance with the law".

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If you want to run a food kitchen, it's incumbent on you to find a place where that's permitted.

Establishing a kitchen would be a zoning issue. Having the ability to give a sandwich to whoever one wants to is a right.

I would assume that from a libertarian perspective, the rights of the sandwich giver and reciever would trump those of officials upset about appearances.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Establishing a kitchen would be a zoning issue. Having the ability to give a sandwich to whoever one wants to is a right.

I would assume that from a libertarian perspective, the rights of the sandwich giver and reciever would trump those of officials upset about appearances.

The rights of the citizens of the municipality trump the rights of the homlessness activists from out-of-town, who have been careful to keep their soup kitchen mobile to avoid the need for zoning compliance. They were already busted once for an unpermitted gathering of more than 25, which it seems they circumvented somehow; presumably by marshalling their clientele in groups smaller than 25, which must be a real cat-herding exercise.

Nobody's been hassled for giving away a sandwich one-on-one.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Uh...yeah, it is illegal: they passed a law against it (and you just admitted it's not benign in the 3b sense). "Legal" doesn't mean "Kitsune thinks it's OK", it means "in accordance with the law".

If Succo went to the park and handed out food to everyone, would the police be right in saying that Succo could only give it to people with who had homes and must turn away everyone that does not? Is that not discrimination? If I went to the park and gave away cotton candy to people everyday and, in time, some Asians that came from surrounding neighborhoods over to enjoy the free treats commited crimes, would the local government be right to pass a law that said it was illegal to give cotton candy to Asians in public parks in order to prevent crime? Under your logic, that law would be just fine if the residents deemed it to be.

I wouldn't have any problem if they passed a law preventing mass food distribution to anyone in public parks. Problem "resolved".

Honestly, if I lived in this area, I'd rent a van and bus the homeless to Succo's house to make it easier for food distribution on both parties.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Honestly, if I lived in this area, I'd rent a van and bus the homeless to Succo's house to make it easier for food distribution on both parties.

Not cheap...assuming by "Succo's house" you mean the place FNB press releases list as Ms. Succo's phone number...it's in Reno. Her brother's number geolocates to a residential area near McCarran International....miles away from the park in question.

I'm sure "Food Not Bombs" would welcome your cash contributions, so "if I were in the area" isn't a consideration. Whether they'd abide by your conditions for using the money or not I don't know. Wikipedia describes them as an anarchist organization; I rather suspect that they are at least partially motivated by a desire for publicity. Apparently the FNB deal is they "rescue" vegan-compliant food from being discarded and offer it to all comers...along with some form of political promotion in the form of brouchures/broadsides etc. You could almost call it "faith-based social services", inasmuch as they seem to not believe in war or meat.

Somehow I don't think there's a huge demand for this food amongst the non-indigent.