Vegas has illegalized feeding the homeless. Good law or ridiculous?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

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

The same way as battling pan-handling; don't give them money, they will go somewhere else.

Quote

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.

the purpose is to restrict supply from one source.

As far as the other source (Soup kitchens ect . . .), there's only so much money the gov't has to spend on certain programs. The loudest, most important priority-sounding program will get the money. If people want more money for the Homeless problem, they have to be louder. Or maybe raise taxes for more revenue.

Maybe the people fighting this law should use that huge amount of energy to lobby some funds away from some other program so the homeless has more. Or would that require them to care for the homeless more than themselves and their liberties. I feel that fighting the law is as self-serving as the people who passed it in the first place.

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, 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.

The news sources that I have read made the assumption that it was a beautification measure. I didn't see any gov't officials being quoted as saying that. I slapped in "humanitarian" as a possible opposing reason. it was more of a filler. If you have a source that states that the officials said that, show me. I'll read it.

I asked for detail, but didn't expect it Not disapointed.

Quote

The same way as battling pan-handling; don't give them money, they will go somewhere else.

Another majic wand approach - POOF - they disappear. Uh, they will go wherever they have to for food, but the park is their home. You go elsewhere for your money, right? Then return home after you have earned your paycheck - same with them. I know, build shelters for them to call home, what a concept. Of course the hirise might have to wait and the new statue of the self-serving local asswipe might have to wait too.

Quote

As far as the other source (Soup kitchens ect . . .), there's only so much money the gov't has to spend on certain programs. The loudest, most important priority-sounding program will get the money. If people want more money for the Homeless problem, they have to be louder. Or maybe raise taxes for more revenue.

Uh, not neccessarily. The board of supervisors, city council, etc can appropriate money for all kinds of things, like statues for the local asswipe who wants a building, statue or some other arrogant structure named after him. They spend money on all kinds of thimgs, but not much on homeless. That is just the culture of the US. Hell, we don't even give working people medical care, and those who have it have some BS HMO joke, which is several rungs below socialized medicine.

Quote

The news sources that I have read made the assumption that it was a beautification measure. I didn't see any gov't officials being quoted as saying that. I slapped in "humanitarian" as a possible opposing reason. it was more of a filler. If you have a source that states that the officials said that, show me. I'll read it.

OH, please post these articles about it being humanitarian, as you listed it being one of the possibilities. It is quite obviously about beautification, or cleansing of the parks.

A filler?

UH, legislative intent is really unimportant here, as the predictable result will be people starving and dying. It is semantic to worry about why?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, I don't have the language of the law,

Let's not bother with the actual details....

I've seen it in the news for days now. I would have to live in a vacuum not to have heard about it. I will do a 5 second internet search since you don't believe me.

It's just that you've asked us to vote on the properness of it, without telling us what it is. So you're compounding your ignorance with our's. All the polling will reveal is the left/right bias of the participants.

Quote

It's just that you've asked us to vote on the properness of it, without telling us what it is.

I gave you the details. I did a 5 second internet search and found several sites. Furthermore, I would have to have lived in a vacuum to not have heard aboutthis - it's been all over the news. Either way, I gave you the gist of it. I'm sorry your party appaudes this, that's why I don't belong to them anymore.

Quote

So you're compounding your ignorance with our's.

I had no ignorance as to this topic and I don't want to comment on your ignorance.

Quote

All the polling will reveal is the left/right bias of the participants.

Yep, butthere are crossovers. Furthermore, it's fun to align Libertarians with the extreme right, since they don't seem to think they are really closet conservatives.

[lawrocket 3]

I don't see how this can be acceptable by law, although "homeless" is not a protected class, nor is a "charity giver" a protected class, so who knows?

I can see the purpose of this - feeding homeless are like moths to the flame. Get rid of the flame and the moths will scatter. In a sense, I applaud this. I used to give to the homelss. One-eyed jack used to panhandle near the freeway entrance to my law school.

At the start of my second year of law school, I saw him there. A year and he was doing the same thing in the same place. I wondered whether I was helping the guy, or whether I was merely subsidizing his lifestyle. He always - ALWAYS - had a lit cigarette. It struck me that I never saw him without one. A few times I saw him light a new one with the near burned out one. SO he had money to support at least 4 packs a day.

It comes down to how to solve homelessness without supporting it. A smack addict isn't cured of his addiction by methadone. You've got to get that smack addict to go through the pain and trouble of dt's to get them off. Homeless can get a free ride, so why try to get their own rides?

In a sense, I believe that a number of societal problems may just need to be solved this way. Is it nice? No. At least not in the short run. Is it something that may be viewed as ultimately a good thing in 10 years? Perhaps.

I am SERIOUSLY torn on this issue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't see how this can be acceptable by law, although "homeless" is not a protected class, nor is a "charity giver" a protected class, so who knows?

I can see the purpose of this - feeding homeless are like moths to the flame. Get rid of the flame and the moths will scatter. In a sense, I applaud this. I used to give to the homelss. One-eyed jack used to panhandle near the freeway entrance to my law school.

At the start of my second year of law school, I saw him there. A year and he was doing the same thing in the same place. I wondered whether I was helping the guy, or whether I was merely subsidizing his lifestyle. He always - ALWAYS - had a lit cigarette. It struck me that I never saw him without one. A few times I saw him light a new one with the near burned out one. SO he had money to support at least 4 packs a day.

It comes down to how to solve homelessness without supporting it. A smack addict isn't cured of his addiction by methadone. You've got to get that smack addict to go through the pain and trouble of dt's to get them off. Homeless can get a free ride, so why try to get their own rides?

In a sense, I believe that a number of societal problems may just need to be solved this way. Is it nice? No. At least not in the short run. Is it something that may be viewed as ultimately a good thing in 10 years? Perhaps.

I am SERIOUSLY torn on this issue.

The nerve of these guys..... addicted to food and all.

Quote

I can see the purpose of this - feeding homeless are like moths to the flame. Get rid of the flame and the moths will scatter. In a sense, I applaud this. I used to give to the homelss.

I think they live in the park, shade, protection, etc... So even if they are fed elsewhere they will return to the park. That is, unless they have a home elsewhere.

Quote

In a sense, I believe that a number of societal problems may just need to be solved this way. Is it nice? No. At least not in the short run. Is it something that may be viewed as ultimately a good thing in 10 years? Perhaps.

What, by incriminating the people who help the homeless? Hmmmmm, ok, but they will go somewhere. Kinda like running the whores out of the red light district, they go elsewhere.

[shropshire 0]

What a good post. It raises an interesting point.... who are we satisfying when we give charitably? Are we helping the [perceived] subject? or our own conscience?

I'm hoping the former but have a sneaking suspicion that there's a big slice of the latter.

Now, that concerns induvidual giving, I'd hope that that governmental or other organised donations are better targetted.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What a good post. It raises an interesting point.... who are we satisfying when we give charitably? Are we helping the [perceived] subject? or our own conscience?

I'm hoping the former but have a sneaking suspicion that there's a big slice of the latter.

Now, that concerns induvidual giving, I'd hope that that governmental or other organised donations are better targetted.

.

I don't see how it needs that kind of analysis - people are starving and dying in the streets. This issue is so far above conscious that it shouldn't be reduced to that kind of debate. This is an issue of humanity. Some of the homeless are VN vets, probably even Gulf vets and other people who have contributed to this country in various ways. Some are mentally ill people too, but either way, they are people who don't want tax write offs for their mansions or mega corps, these are people who would like a sandwich and perhaps a shelter to stay in when it gets hot or cold. And we're debating whether we should criminalize citizens feeding them, and oh, is it due to some deep conscious feeling so we can sleep at night or is it just to help.

When the rest of the world or the horrible left calls this country shit, I think we can understand why.

[micro 0]

Quote

I don't see how this can be acceptable by law, although "homeless" is not a protected class, nor is a "charity giver" a protected class, so who knows?

I can see the purpose of this - feeding homeless are like moths to the flame. Get rid of the flame and the moths will scatter. In a sense, I applaud this. I used to give to the homelss. One-eyed jack used to panhandle near the freeway entrance to my law school.

At the start of my second year of law school, I saw him there. A year and he was doing the same thing in the same place. I wondered whether I was helping the guy, or whether I was merely subsidizing his lifestyle. He always - ALWAYS - had a lit cigarette. It struck me that I never saw him without one. A few times I saw him light a new one with the near burned out one. SO he had money to support at least 4 packs a day.

It comes down to how to solve homelessness without supporting it. A smack addict isn't cured of his addiction by methadone. You've got to get that smack addict to go through the pain and trouble of dt's to get them off. Homeless can get a free ride, so why try to get their own rides?

In a sense, I believe that a number of societal problems may just need to be solved this way. Is it nice? No. At least not in the short run. Is it something that may be viewed as ultimately a good thing in 10 years? Perhaps.

I am SERIOUSLY torn on this issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The nerve of these guys..... addicted to food and all.

Lucky, you sure missed the boat on that one!

Sheesh.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[nanook 1]

Quote

I asked for detail, but didn't expect it Not disapointed.

Okay, i'll try again. People have needs. Some people like using Maslow's Hiearchy of needs model to assist. People need food and they have to go somewhere to get it. The more you have to go out of your way to eat, the more inconvienent. Sooner or later, you realize it's easy to stay as close to a food source as possible. then suddenly, the food source moves. Now they have to go to a new source and after that need gets met, they go back to the park. Untill they realize the new food source and park distance is very inconvienent. They find another place closer to food source. Law fixes park problem.

Quote

OH, please post these articles about it being humanitarian, as you listed it being one of the possibilities. It is quite obviously about beautification, or cleansing of the parks.

A filler?

Okay, I screwed the pooch on that one. I'm just painting my self in a corner trying to defend that.

You can have it.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I don't see how this can be acceptable by law, although "homeless" is not a protected class, nor is a "charity giver" a protected class, so who knows?

I can see the purpose of this - feeding homeless are like moths to the flame. Get rid of the flame and the moths will scatter. In a sense, I applaud this. I used to give to the homelss. One-eyed jack used to panhandle near the freeway entrance to my law school.

At the start of my second year of law school, I saw him there. A year and he was doing the same thing in the same place. I wondered whether I was helping the guy, or whether I was merely subsidizing his lifestyle. He always - ALWAYS - had a lit cigarette. It struck me that I never saw him without one. A few times I saw him light a new one with the near burned out one. SO he had money to support at least 4 packs a day.

It comes down to how to solve homelessness without supporting it. A smack addict isn't cured of his addiction by methadone. You've got to get that smack addict to go through the pain and trouble of dt's to get them off. Homeless can get a free ride, so why try to get their own rides?

In a sense, I believe that a number of societal problems may just need to be solved this way. Is it nice? No. At least not in the short run. Is it something that may be viewed as ultimately a good thing in 10 years? Perhaps.

I am SERIOUSLY torn on this issue.

OK I gotta point something out here:

A lot of you guys are freely interchanging the word "homeless" with "panhandler".

Not all homeless people are panhandler. A hard-working guy whose house was destroyed in a hurricane is a homeless person (especially if he rented his home).

A panhandler is someone who bums money. S/he may or may not be homeless. But in the Butchers Hill area of Baltimore where I used to live, the panhandlers had turned it into an industry.

Many of them lived in the cheap apartments or the housing projects. The police had videos of them coming out of their homes, or reaching into their cars to get blankets so it would look like they were homeless & had been sleeping on the streets.

Then they would go down to the main street in Fells Point, where all the yuppies would go to restaurants & antique shops & bum change off of them. In the evening the rich/middle class college kids would show up to go bar-hopping, & they'd hit them up too.

They actually made a tax-free living doing that. Certainly enough to afford a cheap apartment or home in the projects, & maybe a used car.

Panhandling as an industry exists, because we get what we pay for.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Sheeeet. You've got homeless people in America? When you spend sooooo much money on offensive weapons and liberating people on the other side of the globe.Yet your government is unable or unwilling to put it's hand in it's pocket to look after it's own citizens..... what kind of world do we live in?A pretty fucked up one


.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

This is an issue of humanity. Some of the homeless are VN vets, probably even Gulf vets and other people who have contributed to this country in various ways.

And some were successful businessmen, highly educated, etc., who in one way or another fucked themselves. Gambling addiction has gotten some of them. Addiction to drugs has gotten some. Any of a number of factors.

THese are people who had a good place in society until they did themselves in. They know how to get to the top - they've been there. But they don't. What about them?

Quote

Some are mentally ill people too

And for them, there should be different treatment.

Quote

hese are people who would like a sandwich and perhaps a shelter to stay in when it gets hot or cold.

How about getting them off the streets period? Instead of, "Here's a sandwich. I'll be by tomorrow with one" we should perhaps try, "Hey, buddy. I've got some dirt to move in my backyard. 50 bucks if you help me."

Is that wrong? Is that taking advantage of them? And another thought - how many would accept.

As a final aside, I'm a well educated guy who makes a decent amount of money. And I'm sure many would be surprised that the bum on the street has a greater net worth than I do, what with all the loans, etc., that I owe on.

I worked my ass off to get out of poverty, and I have about a negative 100k net worth to show for it.

SO, tell me, how can someone with a highr net worth than me be doing so damned badly?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't see how this can be acceptable by law, although "homeless" is not a protected class, nor is a "charity giver" a protected class, so who knows?

I can see the purpose of this - feeding homeless are like moths to the flame. Get rid of the flame and the moths will scatter. In a sense, I applaud this. I used to give to the homelss. One-eyed jack used to panhandle near the freeway entrance to my law school.

At the start of my second year of law school, I saw him there. A year and he was doing the same thing in the same place. I wondered whether I was helping the guy, or whether I was merely subsidizing his lifestyle. He always - ALWAYS - had a lit cigarette. It struck me that I never saw him without one. A few times I saw him light a new one with the near burned out one. SO he had money to support at least 4 packs a day.

It comes down to how to solve homelessness without supporting it. A smack addict isn't cured of his addiction by methadone. You've got to get that smack addict to go through the pain and trouble of dt's to get them off. Homeless can get a free ride, so why try to get their own rides?

In a sense, I believe that a number of societal problems may just need to be solved this way. Is it nice? No. At least not in the short run. Is it something that may be viewed as ultimately a good thing in 10 years? Perhaps.

I am SERIOUSLY torn on this issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The nerve of these guys..... addicted to food and all.

Lucky, you sure missed the boat on that one!

Sheesh.

Not at all, you missed the sarcasm. To analogize heroine addicted junkies to that of starving homeless is absurd. To say that if they would just pull themselves up by the bootstraps if we startve em, well, a bad experiment. To say we are enabling them by feeding them, a rationalization.

Isn't this like a husband beating his wife and saying it will do her good in teh longrun and that he's just showing love?

[billvon 3,120]

>And for them, there should be different treatment.

Yes, there should be. Some get it; some don't. Often the ones that don't end up on the street.

>"Hey, buddy. I've got some dirt to move in my backyard. 50 bucks if
>you help me." Is that wrong?

Around here it can be. People have gotten in trouble for that - employing people who hang around outside a Home Depot without verifying their employability status.

But that's a different issue. If that's not a problem where you are, then there's no problem with that. Nor is there a problem with giving them a sandwich.

>SO, tell me, how can someone with a highr net worth than me be doing so damned badly?

I think you know the answer to that.

I'm all for programs to get people off the street and working. And if you doin't want to give those guys food because you think that encourages bad behavior, that's fine. But arresting someone who wants to give someone else a sandwich is, IMO, ludicrous. We should encourage people to help the poor if they choose to. That's far better than taxing them, then redistributing the money later to the same people they were trying to help in the first place.

No matter what we try, we will always have the poor. A much wiser man than I said that, and since we've had them since he said that 2000 years ago, I have to think he was right in the long term. No matter what programs we try, there will be some too lazy/incapable/damaged/frightened/suspicious/stupid to take advantage of them. We should not stop those who want to help these people in their own way.

[Richards 0]

Quote

They're going to panhandle until they're dead. So by illegalizing it in the parks will only move them from the parks, beg and eat, then back to the parks they go as a best case scenario. You're not going to stop begging.

OK perhaps stopping it may be a bit much but the authorities can put restrictions on when and where they can panhandle (as we had to do up here with our safe streets act), so as to prevent harrassing behaviour. Again if people can feed a homeless guy they can also just as easily drop food off at the food bank. If more people would do that the street-people would be more inclined to stay near the shelter and get a meal.

Quote

I can't speak for Canada, but I can't believe they are criminal and the authorities don't arrest them. I hear the entitlement claim and feel it's a brokne record response. Kinda hard for you to assert the claim that they feel entitled when there is no evidence to support that.***



Most arguments to both sides of any issue are used with a degree of frequency that can seem like a cliche response. In terms of how I have observed the sense of entitlement, I have lost count of how many times they have gotten right in my personal space and started yelling at me about how well clothed I am (I where mostly Old Navy cheap clothes), and that since I just came out of McDonalds and fed myself I have no right to leave him without something. I have on occasion felt threatened enough that I had to speed up and get away while saying loudly to the individual to "step away from me" and I am not a small guy. I see them frequently trying to harrass women and elders who will be more easily intimidated. They have even formed a panhandlers union and protested at city hall. Trust me, the ones we have here do have a sense of entitlement and have gotten quite aggressive when people have refused them (this has diminished since the police started cracking down on that sort of conduct).



***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***

OK, my point is that there aren't enough services regardless of how we slice it. 100 gov services handing out X or 50 handing out 2X. There aren't enough.

I do not disagree with you but again with the existing government support for charities and private donations there would be a bigger proportion of each dollar donated actually spent on the homeless if there were fewer charities who each conducted a larger range of support activities. The homeless industry has become a make-work industry with patronage positions upon patronage positions adding to the layers of beuracracy soaking up charity dollars meant for the homeless.

Quote

Please. Starve the poor so it teaches them manners. UH, I've never had a bad experience with a begger. I've plenty of bad experiences with rich and snotty people thinking they have entitlements to parking spaces, seats in restaurants, etc...***


I think you have deliberately misenterpreted my comment. Furthermore I am sure you have had problems with people having the attitudes you have described, but I am not sure how that is relevant to the matter of aggressive panhandlers.



***Once I had a black guy screw me over, hence all black people are bad. ***


Sorry you feel that way.


***Tell me, do you hire people to cut the crust off of your bread

Uh-oh. I made the mistake of thinking this was going to be a mature adult discussion, devoid of silly personal attacks and innuendo. I sincerely apologise for imposing unrealistically high expectations upon you. I won't make that mistake again.

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.

[happythoughts 0]

I would say that people should be cautious with other people who are obviously dysfunctional.

I had a personal situation where I knew someone who lost their drivers license due to drinking. They were a truck driver.

I provided them with an opportunity to work with me.
Unfortunately, they robbed my house 3 weeks later while I was at work.

If people are dysfunctional, be careful of how much chaos that you invite into your life. While people want to help, not everyone is nice.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Here ya go. The suits have started:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2267673

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>We should encourage people to help the poor if they choose to. That's far better than taxing them, then redistributing the money later to the same people they were trying to help in the first place.

Yayyyyy, Bill hits a homerun.

edit: And "Freedom eaters" made me cough while drinking my water. Funny stuff.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Not at all, you missed the sarcasm.

A wise man once wrote - "When people don't have an actual argument, they defer to hillary"

Does it also apply to sarcasm? And what does a generic pretentious rich girl's name have to do with it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

>We should encourage people to help the poor if they choose to. That's far better than taxing them, then redistributing the money later to the same people they were trying to help in the first place.

Yayyyyy, Bill hits a homerun.

rehmwa, that is evil, evil Libertarian thinking there.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

rehmwa, that is evil, evil Libertarian thinking there.

Maybe, but at least I'm not anti-Freedom Eater. Give up the hate, dude.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Maybe, but at least I'm not anti-Freedom Eater. Give up the hate, dude.

I have nothing against Freedom-eaters. I just prefer to take matters into my own hand without having to outsource my zombie-killing.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

SO, tell me, how can someone with a highr net worth than me be doing so damned badly?

That's a silly argument and you know it. Gee - my tiny one-person consulting business made more net profit last year than all US airlines, GM and Ford combined, so I'm clearly of far more value to the US than they are.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>And "Freedom eaters" made me cough while drinking my water.

My work here is done.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

SO, tell me, how can someone with a highr net worth than me be doing so damned badly?

That's a silly argument and you know it. Gee - my tiny one-person consulting business made more net profit last year than all US airlines, GM and Ford combined, so I'm clearly of far more value to the US than they are.

Not necessarily so. The reason why I am doing better is because I have attained more of my potential than they have. Honestly, it can be stripped down to that simple.

Most of the homeless have untapped potential. For many, this potential is untapped because they are either using their potential on other things, i.e., drugs, alcohol, etc., or they are simply choosing an easier way.

Dave Chapelle did an interesting skit a couple of years back called "Kneehigh Park." An Oscar the Grouch-type puppet named "Stinky the Grump" lived in a trashcan, teaching the kids that working is stupid, and he chose the life of calling a garbage can his home because he simply said, "Fuck it."

He even sang a song after saying, "That's the gayest shit I ever heard" to a girl who talked about how her dad works to give her nice stuff:
***I don't believe your pappy,
he may be rich but he ain't happy,
tells you 'bout work and you want to be him,
but when's the last time that you got to see him?

He works hard, and why?
So, you can go out and buy,
a bunch of shit that you dont need,
driven by your punk ass hopes and greed,
that's why I, said, "Fuck it!"

For the first time in my life,
I'm finally free,
no mansion for me,
I said "Fuck it!"
No brand new Humvee,
I said "Fuck it!"

(A cat dressed like a whore chimes in) "But, you'll get no pussy!"

Fuck it!"

What you don't understand,
is I make love to my hand,
So, I don't need you honey,
I beat my dick like it owes me money,
That's right, I said, "Fuck it!".

My wife is hotter than your wife.