Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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.

Unless of course you end up in that position 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.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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"?

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

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I don't.

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.

[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.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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...

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.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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

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

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

That's my point, exactly. It's not likely that $9.09 would do it.

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.

Make up your mind.

[footfootfoot]

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

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Make up your mind.

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

[9th Engineer]

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

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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

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".

[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?

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?

[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.