[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.