Feeding homeless outlawed

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-20-Thu-2006/news/8589438.html

By DAVID MCGRATH SCHWARTZ
REVIEW-JOURNAL

If someone looks like he could use a meal, be warned: Giving him a sandwich in a Las Vegas park could land you in jail.

The Las Vegas City Council passed an ordinance Wednesday that bans providing food or meals to the indigent for free or a nominal fee in parks.

The measure is an attempt to stop so-called "mobile soup kitchens" from operating in parks, where residents say they attract the homeless and render the city facilities unusable by families.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada called the ordinance blatantly unconstitutional, unenforceable and the latest attempt by the city to hide and harass the homeless instead of constructively addressing their plight.

"So the only people who get to eat are those who have enough money? Those who get (government) assistance can't eat at your picnic?" asked ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein. "I've heard of some rather strange and extreme measures from other cities. I've never heard of something like this. It's mind-boggling."

The city's new ordinance, which officials could begin enforcing as early as Friday, defines an indigent as a "person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive assistance" from the government under state law.

Mayor Oscar Goodman, who has been a vocal advocate of cracking down on the homeless in city parks, dismissed questions about how marshals, who patrol city parks, will identify the homeless in order to enforce the ordinance, the violation of which would be a misdemeanor.

"Certain truths are self-evident," Goodman said. "You know who's homeless."

City officials said they instituted the law in part because of recommendations from some who work with the homeless who say offering food separately from other services, such as counseling and drug treatment, is counterproductive.

"This is not a punishment; this is to help people," Goodman said. "The people who provide sandwiches have good intentions, but they're enabling people not to get the help that is needed."

Residents near Huntridge Circle Park, on Maryland Parkway near Charleston Boulevard, say people who bringing food to the homeless draw them to the area.

But one advocate who feeds the homeless at the park said she will continue to do so.

"I'm going to do whatever I think is necessary to keep people alive," said Gail Sacco.

Sacco has been cited twice while feeding the homeless, for holding a gathering of 25 or more people without a permit.

That ordinance is currently the subject of litigation by the ACLU of Nevada, and Gary Peck, the group's executive director, said the ordinance adopted Wednesday probably will be included in the lawsuit.

City Attorney Brad Jerbic said the city tried to negotiate with the ACLU and Sacco, including attempting to find a place where Sacco could provide food to the homeless.

Peck said negotiations "ended badly because, from our perspective, they're not negotiating in good faith. They're trying to figure out ways of making homeless invisible or kicking them out of our community."

Sacco said the city's approach has been to spout rhetoric and push the problem out of view, instead of offer constructive solutions.

"If the city and county and nonprofits are getting out there doing outreach to the people, then (the homeless) won't be at Circle Park and I won't have anyone to feed down there," Sacco said. "If they're just putting people in jail, the city is making it look like they are doing a wonderful job on the homeless issue. It's just a farce."

Sacco said in addition to providing food, she works to get the homeless housing, treatment, identification and jobs.

For the past month, the city has been cracking down on the homeless at Circle Park, arresting those inside the park before it opens at 7 a.m. and citing others for trespassing if they're on private property.

Neighbors have applauded the city's efforts, which have also included threats to increase the number of mentally ill homeless that they force to be hospitalized.

But Peck said despite residents' concerns, any sweep or crackdown has to be done in a legal manner. "It doesn't matter if they're unsightly, if neighbors don't like them. It doesn't trump the Constitution," he said.

The council unanimously passed the ordinance. Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian was absent.

Councilman Steve Wolfson, who last week raised concerns that the measure would prohibit someone from giving a sandwich to a homeless person, said after talking with Jerbic he felt comfortable with how the ordinance would be enforced.

"The marshals will get specialized training on enforcement," Wolfson said. "If you bought a couple of burgers and wanted to give them out, you technically would be in violation, but you wouldn't be cited."

Jerbic said police make judgment calls based on the severity of the crime, and this would be no different.

Lichtenstein said the city's statements were a clear indication they intend to use selective enforcement, which is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
 
There's a similar pattern in my home town, what happens is that groups of teenagers gather on a particular street corner or place. The local residents get annoyed with them being there and reguarly get the police to move them on. Near to where I live at the mo, a metal fence was placed on a street corner purely to stop the teenagers congregating there to skateboard. Will the council actually provide facilities for the teenagers to meet - no. Instead they tend to roam on the high street which now has three places where alcohol can be bought, even though there is now a CCTV camera with a second coming soon at the other end. I still pass several swigging from cans which are out of sight of the CCTV. The area is designated a public place with any open cans of alcohol subject to confiscation with the possibility of fine as well.
 
This is sad, but the reality is that the government wants these people perpetually on the edge in order to continue to feed the social services bureaucracy work force - not with full stomachs. A full stomach and a place to get a steady meal/shelter can do wonders for mentally preparing oneself to 'rejoin society'. Clearly, the goal is not to help homeless people but to keep them in their wretched positions.
 
Telperion said:
This is sad, but the reality is that the government wants these people perpetually on the edge in order to continue to feed the social services bureaucracy work force
Could you provide a link to some data to back this up? Thanks.
 
Let's play: "SPOT THE INDIGENT!" (no, it is not a game show)

Is a person who is smelly, unkempt, dirty clothes, holes in
their soles, ruffled hair an indigent person?

Or

Is a person who smells good(or does not smell at all), dresses moderately,
wears decent shoes, keeps hair clean an indigent person?

One is homeless and the other is a frugal millionaire. So who is it?

I hope that the frugal millionaire sues the pants off the Mayor and lets
the ACLU defend him pro-bono.
 
anart said:
Telperion said:
This is sad, but the reality is that the government wants these people perpetually on the edge in order to continue to feed the social services bureaucracy work force
Could you provide a link to some data to back this up? Thanks.
I could give you my own personal experience with social services if you like.
 
Telperion said:
anart said:
Telperion said:
This is sad, but the reality is that the government wants these people perpetually on the edge in order to continue to feed the social services bureaucracy work force
Could you provide a link to some data to back this up? Thanks.
I could give you my own personal experience with social services if you like.
Actually, the reason I asked is because you've posted 53 posts in five days, with a lot of one liners and what appears to be your opinion on things. While anecdotal observations can serve as support in some cases, opinions never do, and this is a research forum and as such, it works very hard to keep a high signal to noise ratio, and statements backed up by data are much more valuable than statements not backed up by data - thus my request. This thread on opinions might help clear up my request further - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925
 
anart said:
Telperion said:
anart said:
Could you provide a link to some data to back this up? Thanks.
I could give you my own personal experience with social services if you like.
Actually, the reason I asked is because you've posted 53 posts in five days, with a lot of one liners and what appears to be your opinion on things. While anecdotal observations can serve as support in some cases, opinions never do, and this is a research forum and as such, it works very hard to keep a high signal to noise ratio, and statements backed up by data are much more valuable than statements not backed up by data - thus my request. This thread on opinions might help clear up my request further - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925
Sorry, yesterday I did not have time to fully answer your question. My anecdotal 'data' if you will along with my reading of 'The Cunning of History' by Richard L Rubenstein led to my particular post regarding this topic. My thoughts on this are most certainly not based in the realm of "opinions". As Rubenstein notes and as I witnessed first hand, bureaucracy has an inherent dark nature and can be used by Western governments to efficiently solve certain social 'problems'.

oh, here is a link you might find useful - http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/reports.html
 
Back
Top Bottom