No, waitaminute...

"Illegals To Feed Homeless In Parks"

is not to be confused with

"Illegals Fed To Homeless In Parks"

or

"Illegals Feed On Homeless In Parks"

Reminds me of my ex-father-in-law, who liked to joke that "I've got good news and bad news. The bad news is the Martians have landed. The good news is they eat n*ggers and piss gasoline."

Now there's a "social policy with multiple objectives" for ya.

If I go to the park and hand out free balloons to children, do you think they would consider passing a law to prohibit it?
If I push a cart to the park and pass out free samples of ice cream, would the current law apply? (another might -- soliciting)
Why does this law specifically cite the homeless?

Because after they get their balloons the children will go home. Is the concept of "creating a nuisance" that foreign to you?

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.

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.

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...

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?

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

I think I posted that if we provide basic needs to folks, the minimum wage issue goes away, but let's do some quick and dirty math.

rent $500/month
food $15/day X 30 days $450/month
utilities $150/month
clothing $100/month
Minimum monthly costs $1200

monthly hours worked 176
take home $/hr to cover enpenses $6.82
assuming 25% payroll taxes,
necessary gross hourly salary
to cover monthly expenses $9.09

That's no phone, vehicle, car insurance, life insurance, renter's insurance, health insurance (or paid in full by employer), and walking to work.

DUH

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.
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.
Apparently folks in Orlando feel the same way about it.

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.

I think that if "we" (what's this "we" stuff...got a mouse in your pocket? :-)) provide basic needs to folks, that's called socialism. You may think that's a good idea. I don't.

So if the minimum wage is nearly doubled, the homeless problem goes away. No impact on available jobs. Anybody can find a place to live for $500/mo within walking distance of work. Power and heat for $150/mo. Health insurance paid in full by employer.

Sure.

(I finally got a job with fully-paid medical in January for the first time in at least thirty years, and it's a plum I don't expect to see last forever; it's a significant high-value part of my compensation, and probably only available because my employer is in the insurance industry.)

And what became of your "amenities"?

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.

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.

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.

No, no, no. That is not true. The question is where?

The city says at the shelter/kitchen. The park dwellers want room service.

But, either way, they will be fed, if they wish, so leave out starvation, compassion and all the things that don't apply. ;)

As an aside, here is a link to The 12 Myths About Hunger.

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>
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.

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".

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.

Unless of course you end up in that position:rolleyes: The "we" is because I can't feed them alone, and you want them out of the park. "We" have to come up with a solution satisfactory to both of us, or one of us will be pissed. That may not bother you, but I'm a win/win kind of guy.

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
Maggie, you still haven't committed to a position - do you think they should be left to die? You don't seem to want to pay for anything that will help them. How do we resolve this situation It's one thing to just be critical of what's happening, it's another to suggest a solution.

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.

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.

What a bunch of hooey. These people aren't in danger of dying...TFA points out that there are food kitchens within a few miles. What FNB is doing is political theater, nothing more.

So the park is held hostage by the homeless, the socialists, and their anarchist buddies until "the goverment" (meaning taxes from me and the other people earning a living) feeds everyone for free.

I think not.
Oh...I see. Homelessness is the fault of the rich for not giving away what they own. Lovely.

Make up your mind.

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

That's pretty plain - what's your confusion?

A minimum wage job is not something that really has to be able to support someone, let alone a family. Look at the work involved, you put fries in oil and mop floors for 8 hours and go home. We can automate for less cost than human workers, so the labor is not worth more than a few dollars an hour. In essence, anyone who can't do more complicated or valuable work has no value to the market and should be at least understanding that the only reason they have work at all is that other people, for differing reasons, have kept low wage positions available. We don't live in an era where menial labor is very useful anymore, so why do people still expect to be able to live a decent life with no skills??

Complete mechanization of simple low wage jobs plus partially subsidized continuing education would be where I would begin

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

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

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

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".

'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?

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

But not to live.

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.

Thank you for clarifying your misunderstanding.
That misrepresents my words. Actually, I said
Not solve. Are you disputing that there would be fewer homeless in the park if minimum wage were enough to support someone?

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?

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.

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

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

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

Try living without those folks doing what they do.

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?

While they might not be in danger of starving, there is increased exposure to disease and infection, and decreased access to healthcare, proper nutrition, etc.

I haven't met those homeless people.

Which has nothing to do with feeding them in the park. It's still political theater, and I'm not bound for find a "solution" to a phony problem. You claimed they were in danger of starving to death if FNB doesn't get to do their political theater, and that's bogus.

So...are you noww proposing some affirmative action program that eliminates the increased risks that arise from being homeless? That's looney.

Or are you just looking for another red herring to wave?

How would you know?

No, a red herring would be to claim that Isaid they were in danger of starving to death. I challenge you to supply a quote of that. Then we can get back on topic.
BTW, now has only one w.

And I haven't met the ones you describe.

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.

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

How many homeless people have you met? I'm guessing it's a small fraction of Wolf's cohort.

I missed the starve part.;)

What were you suggesting they would be left to die of? Boredom? The issue at hand to which you wished to return was feeding them in the park.

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.

I prefer pie to cookies.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-03bud-f1.jpg

Ok, I concede that point. :redface: I trust your pie to be honest and correct.

Wait til I get my hands on Ben, co-founder of Ben and Gerry's Icecream!:mad:

I know of the estate tax, but I think it's not enough, and doesnt go anywhere. The estate tax just goes to the government at large, and is buried in the billions of dollars spent on bullshit... I'm sure you've heard the one that goes something like "Upon achieving successful space flight, the US found that ball-point pens do not write in space. So, they spent millions on research, and developed a pen that could not only write in space, but upside-down and underwater... The Russians just used a pencil." I think the estate tax should go straight to the needy, not get caught up in all the other bullshit.

And quite simply, yes, I do think we should take money from someone someone who hasn't earned it and give it to people who haven't earned it either but need it more.

Think of homelessness like being trapped down a well. I dont care if someone was pushed in, fell in, or jumped headfirst, I want to help them. Maybe they could get out on their own if they had the willpower or physical strength, but I'm not going to yell down the well "HEY! YOU! DO SOME PUSH-UPS AND CLIMB OUT YOURSELF!", I'd toss them a rope or even climb down myself and help them. I personally like helping people that need help, whether it's tossing them a rope or climbing down there, picking them up, and carrying them out all by myself. It doesnt hurt me to throw a rope, I don't need it and he does. Maybe you don't feel the same way, but I think if you were filthy stinkin' rich, you could stand to part with a bit of cash when you go.

Isn't "Entitlement Program" a loaded term? Should we ridicule the irresponsible public for feeling "Entitled" to a decent highway system, or dependable mail delivery? Why can't those lazy slackers pull themselves up by their bootstraps and develop a good-old-fashioned do-it-yourself attitude?

Sure, let's go completely liberal and relabel everything until we like the spin. "Undocumented immigrant" rather than "illegal alien" for starters. "Dispropotionate response" rather than "self-defense". "Affirmative action" rather than "race-based set-aside".

"Entitlement" has a specific meaning in this context. Perhaps you'd prefer to refer to it as "mandatory humanitarianism".

When was the term "entitlement program" coined? It sounds like spin.

Yes, I've heard of it, and it's completely an urban legend. I happen to be a Space Pen user...they rock hard, and they're not at all expensive now.

Gawdawmighy, you really, really, really don't want to use a graphite pencil in a microgravity environment full of electronic equipment. Trust me.

No, let's go completely conservative and relabel everything until we like the spin.

Wow, what an unproductive and over-simplified game of good guys versus bad guys. I'll bet we can do this all day long and get absolutely nowhere.

Welcome to the Cellar. ;)

In the Federal budget process...the distinction is "entitlements" vs. "discretionary spending".

see http://www.appropriations.senate.gov...getprocess.htm

"Entitlements" because someone has been "entitled" by existing law to receive the money.

Okay, maybe it didnt really happen, but the story gets my point across.

Any comments on, uh, anything else in my entire post? Or just that one little redundant point?

:::slowly backs out of thread:::

Believe me when I tell you that nobody feels more entitled than a wealthy person.

An original term is not a relabeling. Like "liberal"...which is now "progressive".

Moral equivalance again...

Really? Show up at the welfare office on the day when checks are late.

So...where's your "hawks are spending all the tax money"?