Lucky... 0
Vegas has illegalized feeding the homeless. Good law or ridiculous?
By
Lucky..., in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
<> - moi
.
No but seriously, if people (I'm really trying not to generalise here - honest) put themselves up as models of Christianity, then the very least that they should do is follow a well laid down example.
And giving a butty every now and then to a stranger in need is no great sacrifice in the great scheme of things.
P.S I dont count myself as a Christian but I do donate to the poor. - I also expect my government to help out too.
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
.
No but seriously, if people (I'm really trying not to generalise here - honest) put themselves up as models of Christianity, then the very least that they should do is follow a well laid down example.
And giving a butty every now and then to a stranger in need is no great sacrifice in the great scheme of things.
P.S I dont count myself as a Christian but I do donate to the poor. - I also expect my government to help out too.
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
micro 0
QuoteQuotecan you say troll?
Nope, no stirring the pot here. everything I posted is based on my belief that fixing homeless problems means not countering efforts. Battling any problem means working on both supply and demand sides of the causes. Now, whether Las Vegas is trying to fight homelessness for aesthetic puropses or for humanitarian purposes, it still stands that this law will stop supply side causes.
but here's the problem... and I can see where you and they are presumably coming from... cut off supply of food at the parks so the homeless will move back to the shelters and other out-of-sight places where they belong and where their needs will be met, at least in principle.
the problem is this... and i've seen this first hand when i worked as an emergency psychiatric worker in nashville. we'd often get called to the mission there b/c the severly mentally ill are often, you guessed it, homeless. and when they are in crisis, i.e. unstable, they called us to intervene. homeless missions in urban areas are places where they try to meet the needs of a heterogeneous population of homeless people: ex-cons, mentally ill, immigrants, average joes down on their luck. and there is violence there. and drugs. and sometimes arbitrary, senseless rules to follow in order to get food and shelter. sometimes you have to attend a mandatory religious service in order to be able to stay in some homeless shelters. wacky.
for various reasons, people often don't want to stay at homeless shelters. either to get away from gang activity, violence, drugs, alcohol (yes, this is true, there are homeless people who REALLY are sober and try very hard to maintain that sobriety. I know a few personally in Nashville who, even though they don't have housing, go to 12 step meetings every single day). Maybe the homeless shelter is full, which isn't uncommon at all! Maybe their mental illness has them paranoid and they can't stand to be near a group of strangers...
So, they go to a park... a tranquil park... it affords them peace and quite, and more importantly, the opportunity to get (hopefully) their most basic needs met... food and water.
I doubt this law is even the lame attempt it appears to be to help solve even a small part of the homeless imbroglio in Vegas. Rather, like a previous poster said, it's probably just an attempt to "pretty up" the parks b/c we can't have the ugly homeless folks scaring away the tourists now, can we?
Let's get the scale out again... tourist $ on one side, the lives of the homeless on the other... which is more important?
I met Mother Theresa in 1987 in Gallup, New Mexico. I know what she would say. And if she were alive and in Vegas today, she'd be arrested or fined.
I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuotecan you say troll?
Nope, no stirring the pot here. everything I posted is based on my belief that fixing homeless problems means not countering efforts. Battling any problem means working on both supply and demand sides of the causes. Now, whether Las Vegas is trying to fight homelessness for aesthetic puropses or for humanitarian purposes, it still stands that this law will stop supply side causes.
Quoteeverything I posted is based on my belief that fixing homeless problems means not countering efforts.
So supporting/enforcing the law is part of fixing the homeless problem? How so? Please explain in some detail how that will work - illegalizing feeding people in parks will fix the homeless problem (fewer homeless people) exactly how?
QuoteBattling any problem means working on both supply and demand sides of the causes.
The demand will maintain unless there other sources of help, or if the homeless die off. Is that part of the, "fix?" The supply will follow the demand, pending there are charitable people to help. If the government actually had adaqute outlets to help, the demand would be centralized away from the parks, the streets and businesses.
QuoteNow, whether Las Vegas is trying to fight homelessness for aesthetic puropses or for humanitarian purposes, .....
I guess I'm lost on this remark, how is it that they have claimed or it will become a humanitarian result by outlawing the giving of food to homeless people by citizens while in the parks. This a park beautification measure.
Quote...it still stands that this law will stop supply side causes.
Uh, no. People are challenging this law and Vegas will look like scum for it. Thsi law will affect nothing. If the law somehow stands, charitible people will meet the homeless a block away from the parks, the homeless will eat there and return to the parks where there's shade and a bit of privacy.
This is as crazy as thinbking we can go kill a bunch of Arabs and think we will stop the fight between the Israelis and the Arabs. It's foolishness, you can't stop certain behavior and if your choice is to arrest or murder that behavior it only degrades the quality of life of the enforcer. Lookat America and compare it to 20 years ago, then 30.....
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote>Feed them, and they will
comelive.
What do you think the meaning of my post was anyway?
I simply pointed out a fact. Was that fact wrong?
To thinkthey only come ot the parks to eat is incorrect. I think they like the shade and privacy too. It's the best place an intercity has to offer.
Richards 0
QuoteThe ACLU will be fucking all over this one and will likely win even while in a Fascist state..... there still are limits.
Fascist state might be a bit of a stretch.
QuoteI can see the need for trying to minimise harrassing behavior from panhandlers.
But how can you blame the giver and not the so-called harrasser? The reason is that vegrancy laws are done, so they have to go after the giver. So now they can control what you do wiith your food and whom you decide to give it to?
I think the idea is to get people to stop encouraging the behaviour of panhandling.
QuoteWe have had problems here in Toronto with aggressive panhandlers who will badger people and in some cases threaten or attack people.
I don't think that's representative of 99% of beggers.
Depends where you live. In Canada there is more of a sense of entitlement amongst our citicens (unfortunately) and that is also reflected in our panhandlers. Interestingly enough, tourists from around the world including the US have commented on the relative aggressiveness of the panhandlers here. Some of the ones here tend to act like wild bears that have grown accustomed to being fed by humans and it is causing problems.
***I am all for charity but I can see a need for controlling panhandling.
How about more social services? If I were homeless and I could get free services from a shelter Iwould go there rather than begging.***
We don't need more organizations. We need to cut down on the number of charities and increase the breadth of distribution from the ones left over. Each charity requires a certain amount of overhead and administrative costs and the utter lack of economies of scale we see in the large number of charities results in a larger proportion of donations being put towards running each charity. With fewer charities we could cut down on the amount of directors, treasurers...etc and see more positive returns.
Furthermore since much of the coldness people have towards panhandlers is derived from the negative experiences most have had with these guys, a law that cuts back on panhandling may allow people a little bit of breathing room which could result in them becoming a little more charitable. I know that moving to a large city where I had been harrased and even threatened by panhandlers caused me to develop a "Fuck-em" attitude (which I admit is wrong). I never felt that way when it was not being shoved in my face.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
That's a great point, sarcastic or otherwise. Some ofthese believers of Jesus who align themselves with this law might want to rethink either one of the preceding values - they contradict.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites