Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Yeah, smaller, less-intrusive, government, sure, tell me another one...

I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.

[Ibby]

I would vote for it, just for the pink floyd reference...

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.

I don't see the parallel. Not in the least.
Again, there is not an "open soup kitchen IN the park".
You make it sound like a permanent structure in the park. Not so.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.

But the government isn't intruding by not doing anything... They may be failing to intrude when you want them to intrude a bit, depending on how one views the issue, but they arent intruding.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.

That's a bold -s--t--r--e--t--c--h- Magster. My hat is off to you.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Flint

That's a bold -s--t--r--e--t--c--h- Magster.

Holy shit, I second that.

Everyone, to arms! We must halt the spread of food in a public area to the public by the public!

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Holy shit, I second that.

Everyone, to arms! We must halt the spread of food in a public area to the public by the public!

You keep waving around the word "public" like it was blanket permission do do whatever you want...simply calling something "a public park" doesn't mean any member of "the public" can do anything they they feel like there.

When "a public park" is, say, a municipal park, the municipality is responsible for it and sets the rules for its use. The same applies to state parks and Federal parks: each is adminstered and controlled by the branch of governement that brought it into being and owns (or leases) the land.

For example, the Farm Park I mentioned earlier is on land owned by a state agency but leased to the county it resides in, and occupies land in three different municipalities...but it's administered and controlled by the county, so the county sets the rules there. The municipal park down the road belongs to West Norriton Township, the municipality.

If the people of West Norriton decide, for example, that walking dogs without a leash is verboten in their park, they have the right to implement that rule though a township ordinance. They don't give up that right just because "it's a public park". Nor can anyone who wanders in off the street use the municipally-owned golf course for free (or for playing horsehoes, or feeding paupers) just because "it's public".

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But the government isn't intruding by not doing anything... They may be failing to intrude when you want them to intrude a bit, depending on how one views the issue, but they arent intruding.

If the county or state decides to tell the municipality whose park it is that they must allow Ms. Anarchist-from-Reno to run her soup kitchen in their park, I'd call that "intrusive". The folks whose park it is have already expressed their desire though their municipal government.

[Ibby]

That doesnt change the fact that the government isn't intruding when it doesn't do something. It's hard to intrude without actually doing something...

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If the people of West Norriton decide, for example, that walking dogs without a leash is verboten in their park, they have the right to implement that rule though a township ordinance. They don't give up that right just because "it's a public park".

You are correct. If the people of West Norriton decide, however, that black people walking dogs commit more crime when they come to the park, the people cannot ask for a law or ordinance that bans black people from walking their dogs. The city of Las Vegas has not outright banned the homeless from the park, yet, but they restricted an activity specific to that class of people. That is not valid.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Nor can anyone who wanders in off the street use the municipally-owned golf course for free (or for playing horsehoes, or feeding paupers) just because "it's public".

Correct again -- many towns and cities do this based upon restricting the facilities to the people that pay the taxes that upkeep it. (the use of the term "public" in this sense, however, is questionable) The Las Vegas park, to my knowledge, has not set any restrictions regarding this and has, as I keep saying, implemented a law based on social class. I keep suggesting that there are other ways around this that don't involve writing city laws that discriminate based on income level, but you just keep on advocating the law that does for some reason.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If the county or state decides to tell the municipality whose park it is that they must allow Ms. Anarchist-from-Reno to run her soup kitchen in their park, I'd call that "intrusive". The folks whose park it is have already expressed their desire though their municipal government.

I missed this post... The government didn't say they had to let her, nor did they sat she couldn't. As far as I know, they stayed out of it. Therefore, they didnt intrude in the slightest.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Is that really so much different than implying that "I'm sure there must be homeless people who don't do X"? Accusing a sample of being biased implies that you believe there are cases out there that don't fit the sample.

I think it's pretty much accepted all round that mentally ill homeless people are less likely to be working their way out of it (though it does happen - my mom volunteers at a soup kitchen and knows a woman who managed to get a place to live, and a job after getting on medication). In that light, I think wolf's statement needs to be interpreted in light of her position in a mental hospital.

And, logically speaking, accusing a sample of being biased implies only that the sample is useless in drawing a conclusion; it says nothing about what the conclusion should be.

[Kitsune]

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said the lanuage makes the law unenforceable. “The ordinance is clearly unconstitutional and nonsensical,” he said. “How are you going to know without a financial statement who’s poor and who’s not poor?” “It means they can discriminate based on the way people look,” Lichtenstein said.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Unenforceable

It may be that...although the ACLU isn't of course the ultimate authority; they're just putting forward their theory.

If FNB insists on continuing to be a pain in the ass in trying to mainain access to what they want to make their political stage, sooner or later the municipality will find a formula that passes muster even in the Ninth Circuit.

What they may end up with is a law requiring permits to use the park, as some Jersey Shore and Delaware communities have for beach access, and many places have for parking in certain zones. Apparently they already tried a system requiring permits for gatherings more than 25, and FNB found a way to beat that. Perhaps use-permitting with differential access for residents and non-residents.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I missed this post... The government didn't say they had to let her, nor did they sat she couldn't. As far as I know, they stayed out of it. Therefore, they didnt intrude in the slightest.

Watch this space. :-) The ACLU is convinced they will.

The trick may be coming up with a definition that encompases "mobile anarchist vegan soup kitchen" without interfering with ordinary picnics, which they have claimed to be.