Give the homeless food and end up in jail, Vegas city council

[AlonzoMourning23]

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Caution: Don't feed the homeless.

The Las Vegas City Council voted unanimously this week to pass an ordinance making it illegal to give food to homeless people in city parks.

The ordinance went into effect Thursday and carries a maximum penalty of $1,000 and or six months in jail. Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian was absent for the vote.

It's directed at the so-called "mobile soup kitchens" that hand out food at parks, attracting large groups of people, said city spokesman David Riggleman. Residents complain the homeless who gather at the parks make it impossible for others to use them, he said.

"We're trying to empathize with both camps," he said. "We're hoping we can improve their lives and improve the lives of people living around the park, some of whom have people urinating and defecating in front of their door."

Riggleman said that by shutting down these soup kitchens the homeless will be encouraged to go to a center or charity that offers services such as mental health evaluations or job placement.

Gail Sacco, who operates a mobile soup kitchen seven days a week, said the city doesn't have adequate homeless services and that she is undeterred.

"There's no way for people to get out to those services in triple-digit weather," she said. "My plan is to do anything I feel is needed to keep these people alive."

The ordinance defines a homeless person as an indigent "whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive assistance."

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said the language makes the ordinance 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.

Sacco said she and the homeless people she serves have been targeted by law enforcement for crimes that other people would not be arrested for, such as sitting at a bus stop with no money in their pocket, or for jaywalking.

In February, while feeding homeless people, Sacco said she was cited for having a gathering of over 25 people without a permit and told she could not re-enter the park for six months. The ban was later dropped, but in May she was cited again.

Sacco has filed a lawsuit with the help of the ACLU in federal court against the city.

Riggleman said he could not comment on the suit.

The city, led by Mayor Oscar Goodman, has cracked down on the homeless in recent months.

In June, city officials announced they would place mentally ill homeless people in hospitals for 72-hour evaluations whether they wanted to go or not, raising an outcry from the civil liberties group.

City officials have since acknowledged there are not enough beds at area mental health facilities to serve everyone deemed to be in need.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/20/072010285.html

[Nathan Brazil]

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Caution: Don't feed the homeless.

The Las Vegas City Council voted unanimously this week to pass an ordinance making it illegal to give food to homeless people in city parks.

The ordinance went into effect Thursday and carries a maximum penalty of $1,000 and or six months in jail. Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian was absent for the vote.

Excellent idea. The People's Republic of Santa Monica had to finally resort to the same approach. Seems that church groups in affluent cities like Redondo Beach would have their free food wagons delivering food in Santa Monica, which certainly seemed like a dandy way of luring the bums away from the better people.

But Santa Monica had animals pissing and crapping in the parks...on the lawn. And I don't mean four legged animals.

City parks aren't campgrounds, no one should be allowed to sleep in them overnight. Clearly since the bums aren't paying city taxes, they shouldn't be claiming a non-existent right to use those facilities. They're freeloaders and should be treated as such.

[dsanthony]

I agree completely with Mayor Goodman. It is NOT illegal to feed the homeless. It is illegal to feed them in public parks or public spaces. I live in Las Vegas, and there are many shelters and kitchens where the homeless can get free meals. If churches or other groups wish to feed the homeless, let them bring them into their private churches or homes to do so.

Goodman ran right into the lie of the Democratic Party last month. At a mayor's "convention" he said that the homeless who are mentally ill should be hospitalized. Of course, he was shouted down by the ACLU lunatic fringe.

There are basically 3 types of homeless people. The mentally ill. Alcholics/drug addicts and people who would rather be homeless than work. The short-term homeless who have lost jobs or housing and need short term assistance.

The Dems victim machine must put them all into one large group and deny that there are distinctions in need and/or worthiness of help. IT was the ACLU that forced the mass release of patients from psychiatric hospitals across the US--regardless of whether they were able or willing to follow a medicinal regime to curb their symptoms. The ACLU should be round up and forced to live in parks and on the streets. Let the homeless live in their homes.

[AlonzoMourning23]

IT was the ACLU that forced the mass release of patients from psychiatric hospitals across the US--regardless of whether they were able or willing to follow a medicinal regime to curb their symptoms.

Many become homeless due to poverty and then go over the edge, either through psychological or substance abuse issues they didn't have before. Many are homeless directly because of their mental illness or substance issue. And there are many working homeless.

Some 42 percent of homeless people in the United States are employed, according to estimates from the National Coalition for the Homeless.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/03/21/news/top_stories/3_20_0422_56_52.txt

But it was liberals who were appalled at the overcrowding and poor care in many mental health facilities. It was the conservatives who wanted to cut spending. Deinstitutionalization was extremely popular, and was done in the u.s., canada, and I believe virtually every western country.

The plan itself wasn't that bad, but the funding wasn't there. Programs to monitor ex-patients (once people feel good, they think they're better and have an extremely high rate of relapse due to stopping their medication) were not funded, even though the original legislation for deinstitutionalization (signed by JFK) called for many such programs, and its success depended on it. Half-way houses were not built (the whole "not in my backyard" thing), or built in ghetto's where many social workers were afraid to go, and those environment are dangerous for those already mentally fragile as it is.

The way institutions were run was abysmal, unhealthy, and cruel. Some were so crowded that patients didn't even get one short visit a week with a psychiatrist or psychologist. Deinstitutionalization was not necessarily bad per se, and many did benefit, but the way that it was handled turned it into a train reck. More people need hospitalization, and better care was essential for helping those hospitalized to recover.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I live in Las Vegas, and there are many shelters and kitchens where the homeless can get free meals.

City officials have since acknowledged there are not enough beds at area mental health facilities to serve everyone deemed to be in need...

Gail Sacco, who operates a mobile soup kitchen seven days a week, said the city doesn't have adequate homeless services and that she is undeterred.

[Nathan Brazil]

Many become homeless due to poverty and then go over the edge, either through psychological or substance abuse issues they didn't have before. Many are homeless directly because of their mental illness or substance issue. And there are many working homeless.

So? If they want to be free to walk about the streets, they have to obey the same laws everyone else does. That includes laws against sleeping and shitting in public parks.

It was the conservatives who wanted to cut spending. Deinstitutionalization was extremely popular, and was done in the u.s., canada, and I believe virtually every western country.

Of course, this is a lie. It was the Democrats that cut the spending in the United States and who then used the predictable infestation of cities with nuts and weirdos as an ideological bludgeon against Reagan.

It's funny how the "homeless" no longer made news the day a rapist occupied the Whitehouse, even though spending wasn't increased.

Ah, it's just one of the "inexplicable" miracles of modern politics, eh?

Tell me, is it only in Los Angeles that "homeless" are those nice Shakespeare quoting angels, and it's only "transients" that commit crimes? I've noticed that. They've even reported on a transient that lived under the same bridge for three months right along with a herd of his buddies, who were called "homeless" because they hadn't burglarized a home and raped a resident.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nathan, once again an informative post. Great "I don't like it so it's wrong" rebuttal I might add, and nice links. Though, as for rapist, don't be so harsh to judge Reagan, it was just an accusation after all.

When your solutions move beyond kill, starve and "fuck em", maybe your opinion on society and war will be worth a real response.

[Nathan Brazil]

I don't recall saying anything about killing the homeless, nor the "transients", and fuckin' em isn't something I could be paid to do.

Starving them isn't a bad solution to the problem, though. I hear that the People's Republic of Santa Monica isn't having quite so big a problem with their population of bums as they used to, though their city parks are still minefields.

Seems there's no pooper scooper laws for people...

[dsanthony]

I live in Las Vegas, and there are many shelters and kitchens where the homeless can get free meals.

City officials have since acknowledged there are not enough beds at area mental health facilities to serve everyone deemed to be in need...

Gail Sacco, who operates a mobile soup kitchen seven days a week, said the city doesn't have adequate homeless services and that she is undeterred.


Obviously, if a move to "reinstitutionalize" the mentally-ill homeless were begun, additional funds would be required. As for the question of "who is deemed to be in need," I do not think alcoholics and drug addicts apply. If they need to dry out, throw them in jail and give them referrals to existing aa groups when they get out. If they're homeless, obviously their employers and families have tried to help them clean up, with no success. Unfortunately, people with addictions are often beyond help...

The current shelter system is adequate for most of the truly "economic homeless" they have 30 day stays and will extend for longer if the person is truly working to get on their feet.

[AlonzoMourning23]

If they're homeless, obviously their employers and families have tried to help them clean up, with no success.

Many people have few family connections (one of the reasons for the spike in suicide rates around holidays), and if their family or friends are poor then that's not gonna help. And the fasted growing categories are single mothers and families.

And I'm not sure what employers are going to do. If your employed then they already pay you, it's just not enough.

[Nathan Brazil]

If they're homeless, obviously their employers and families have tried to help them clean up, with no success.

Many people have few family connections (one of the reasons for the spike in suicide rates around holidays), and if their family or friends are poor then that's not gonna help. And the fasted growing categories are single mothers and families.

And I'm not sure what employers are going to do. If your employed then they already pay you, it's just not enough.


Single mothers? Oh, you mean widows. Otherwise, the mother knows who the father of the child is...most of the time, but if she doesn't know who the father is, then she has a profession to return to, right?

And if she knows who the father is, and he didn't ask her to abort the child, then he should have to pay his share of raising the kid. If he did ask her to abort, he should be exempt from paying, of course. His paycheck, his choice, right?

Whatever, the people that shouldn't be dunned for supporting parasites are the race of people known variously as "workers" or "taxpayers". They're not the ones who chose to live on the streets, and they have no moral obligation to support those who have.