Homelessness

Another Infuriating Crackdown on Sharing Food With the Homeless

San Antonio targets a good Samaritan, because rules are rules.

|

||| TheChowTrain.com
TheChowTrain.com

"Do good Samaritans get tickets in San Antonio?" asked chef Joan Cheever last week.

"Yes," replied Mike Marrota, the police officer to whom Cheever had directed the question. Marrota, who was joined on the scene by a trio of fellow bike cops, then handed the good Samaritan a ticket. For $2,000.

Cheever's alleged offense? Sharing restaurant-quality food with the homeless and less fortunate "without a permit."

As Cheever explained to Marrota, according to a Texas Public Radio account of the exchange, the food she serves every Tuesday evening, part of charitable work she's done for the past decade, was prepared in a commercial kitchen. Food handlers were licensed. The food truck from which she serves was permitted. But with no special permit for giving food away to people who can't afford to buy it, Cheever faces a ridiculous (and steep) fine.

No matter. Rule are rules, right?

And because they are, it's worth pointing out that Officer Marrota appeared, at the very moment he handed the ticket to Cheever, to be in violation of a San Antonio Police Department policy that prohibits officers from visible displays of body art. Marrota looks to have a star tattoo on his right arm.

Rules are rules, after all.

The San Antonio ticket is only the latest such example of crackdowns on those who share food with those in need. Shockingly, it's not even the most ridiculous recent example. Last year, 90-year-old chef Arnold Abbot made news when he was arrested by Ft. Lauderdale police for sharing food with the homeless. He faced two months in jail and hundreds of dollars in fines, according to reports. Abbot, a hero, kept on sharing food.

Recently, Abbot's arrest became an issue in Ft. Lauderdale mayor Jack Seiler's re-election campaign. Unfortunately, Seiler was re-elected.

San Antonio and Ft. Lauderdale are hardly outliers. A 2014 report found that nearly one in 10 American cities criminalizes sharing food with the homeless. Another report found that dozens of other cities have recently considered passing such bans.

That's the infuriating data. And it fits a pattern I've documented many times in recent years. In fact—and it brings me no joy to point this out—this is the fifth year in a row I've written something for Reason on municipal bans on food sharing. In 2011, I focused on arrests in Orlando of people sharing food with those in need. In 2012, I blasted Philadelphia for its ban and argued that such bans are unconstitutional.

"Restrictions on feeding the homeless are unconstitutional, discriminatory, and wrongheaded," I wrote. "[T]he U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assemble peaceably for any reason."

In 2013, I took on proposals to enact bans in Chicago and Seattle. Last year, I called out Birmingham, Ala., for "barr[ing] a local pastor from sharing food with the homeless from a church-owned vehicle because he doesn't have… a food truck permit."

I've also been quoted elsewhere blasting such rules. A 2012 Los Angeles Times piece, which also quoted me, asked the right question of such laws: "Are American officials trying to help the poor—or legislate them out of sight?"

The purpose of these un-American bans on sharing food with those in need is perfectly clear. The spread of these laws is as wrongheaded as it is indefensible. When cities enact unconstitutional laws that make charity a crime, good Samaritans do get tickets.

NEXT: Who Is This Mike Huckabee Guy, and Is He Running for President?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Are American officials trying to help the poor?or legislate them out of sight?”

    Because that’s how you get ants.

    1. The government only cares about the poor to the extent that “serving” them is a mode of self-aggrandizement. One that also allows for plenty of graft and back scratching. They cannot tolerate individual citizens taking care of each other. Things might get out of hand.

      Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

      1. True sadly. So true. Fuck the state.

    2. +1 (Sterling) Malory Archer

  2. First on the weekend too? How gauche.

    1. He’s dedicated.

      Or has no life.

      Your pick.

      1. Skilled or lucky. You decide.

        1. LOL

          I decide BOTH.

          8%

  3. You know who else said ‘Rules are rules’?

    1. Neidermeyer?

    2. some list-making H&R commenter?

      1. Oh, you beat me to it

      2. I don’t have the opportunity to comment often. The serve was there; I had to swing.

        1. Your handle is lacist.

          1. Lacist? That went over my non-blonde head.

            1. Well, it wasn’t totally lacist. Gordirocks would have been fully lacist.

              1. My bronde head has been recaribrated. Thanks.

                Also, I am unaware of what ‘hth’ means, though I observe it in use when people are mocking Dunphy.

                  1. Nope. You can tell me this time.

                    1. Sowwy.

                    2. Racist and unhelpful. Sheesh.

                    3. *un’help’ful

                      Damn sarcasm typos.

              2. You mean furry lacist.

    3. Tulpa?

      1. He’s tumescent as I write this.

    4. Walter Sobchak?

      1. He wasn’t wrong.

        1. Bullshit, Walter. Mark it 8, Dude.

    5. Roger Goodell?

    6. The NFL?

    7. Rules are rules
      So why should it be
      You and I
      Should get along
      So awfully?

      Depeche Mode?

  4. So it’s legal to sell food, but illegal to give it away? Welcome to 21st century America.

    1. Well, they don’t make it easy to sell food either.

    2. And illegal to sell sex or organs, but you can legally give it away. It all makes perfect sense.

    3. So it’s legal to sell food, but illegal to give it away?

      No, it’s barely legal to sell food.

    4. No, they just used the wrong vehicle. See below.

    5. So, sell it for one cent.

  5. More proof that charity will never be enough to feed the poor. See? They can’t feed the homeless.

    This is obviously a market failure, and we need more government to step in and do the job.

    1. Go home Krugman. Your’e drunk.

      1. And you’re ugly.

    2. I think you may have put your finger on it, at least in part. The Government gets nervous when anybody steps in to do anything the Government has declared that it will do, even (and perhaps especially) when it does it badly or has to be badgered to do it at all. After all, if people got the notion that they could provide for themselves better than The State could, the status quo could get VERY seasick. Why some of the legion of parasites who call themselves Civil Servants might actually have to WORK for a living.

      1. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with “Government-BOO!!” acting out some grand plan. It’s far more likely some fucknugget with political connections had a problem with the soup kitchen and complained.

        Or the beat cops thought, “Now that these bums are all fueled up and in our beat we’re gonna have a shitty time towards the end of shift” and sought to nip that shit in the bud.

    3. It’s proof that they don’t care about the poor. They use the poor as human shields to protect their own interest in the state.

      They want safety nets for themselves, and whining about the poor and the unfortunate comes across as much less unseemly than begging for government guarantees of other people’s money so that they can be taken care of, no matter what happens.

  6. Ome of the most clear cut examples of how government is an evil institution.

    Like Hayek, I tend not to get upset by safety net programs. However, between these good samaritan laws & the frequent kidnqpping, imprisonment & murder of the homeless by police it becomes clearer by the day that government should play no role in the lives of the poor.

    Government will always be used as a weapon against the poor. democracy is no safeguard against that, & as we have seen clear cut constitutional prohibitions are no protection from tyranny, either.

    1. Democracy and the Constitution could be protection, but whey are tools for that, not the protection itself. We have to pick up those tools and USE them.

      When I was just beginning to pay attention to politics, in the 1970’s, it was broadly assumed that in the near future, handguns would be illegal in most States. And then the citizenry decided “oh, HELL no”. And the political establishment didn’t like it, and still don’t. But the Gun Control “wave of the future” has receded back dow the beach.

      There was a time, in the late 1960’s, when the rightness of driving freeways through whole neighborhoods went largely unopposed. And then some people decided they weren’t going to be ousted from their homes just so Jack Commuter could shave 10 min. off his daily drive.

      We can, if we are willing to work at it, put a stop to this nonsense.

      1. We have to pick up those tools and USE them.

        ELIMINASHUNIST RETTORICK.

        1. To,which the proper amswer is “Fuck off, slaver”

      2. It was also assumed that pot would be legal. Then there was a pause of 40 yrs.

        But a lot of other things happened too. People successfully revolted vs. the 55 mph speed limit. By the early 1980s, the tax revolt had largely succeeded. Just when it looked like a stronger clampdown was coming, the Fairness Doctrine got undone, & b’casting stn. ownership limits were lifted. Socialized medicine looked like it was around the corner, but it too took a 40 yr. pause.

    2. Don’t forget occupational licensing laws and zoning, which make it impossible for poor people to help themselves by cutting hair, cooking meals, or running a daycare.

  7. ::reads article::

    Serenity now!
    Serenity now!

  8. “Are American officials trying to help the poor?or legislate them out of sight?”

    You clearly don’t understand. Government helps the poor by outlawing these things.

    It’s not fair that a poor person should depend on the charity of others. They should be able to buy a meal. So if we outlaw people giving food to the poor, then the poor will go out and buy meals!

    Same thing with yucky housing like flop houses. Nobody should have to sleep in a place like that. So if we outlaw them, the poor will go sleep in motels!

    Same thing with low paying jobs. It’s not fair that some jobs don’t pay a living wage. So if we outlaw such jobs, the poor will find ones that pay better!

    Because of the magical power of good intentions, this will never result in the poor being hungry, sleeping on the streets, or being unemployed.

    Three cheers for intentions! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray!

    *This message was brought to you by The Road to Hell Paving Company LLC*

    1. Don’t forget the ability of the poor to secure cheap transportation getting totally fucked over by Cash For Clunkers.

      1. I would hope some enterprising individuals pencil-whipped the engine killing procedure, and then shipped the cars down to South America.

        1. I doubt it. Having worked in an industry that deals with demolition yards, I can assure you that those cars were disposed with in accordance with the law.

          Same as all those Tier 0 motors the CARB paid to replace (with taxpayer funds) that would have been good for replacement parts or sold intact overseas.

        2. My stepfather is sales manager at a dealership, and they tearfully killed all the engines according to the rules. Destroyed some really nice cars too. Old Mustangs and shit. That law was an abomination.

          1. But it increased spending Sarc. If we could just spend all our money, we’d be rich!

            1. I pointed out to a prog that Cash For Clunkers caused the price of a used car to rise an average of $900. I asked him whether he thought this was good for poor people. He sort of sputtered about stimulus and multipliers before giving the line about eggs and omelettes. UAW members take priority over poor people I guess.

      2. I was just following the rule of three.

      3. Don’t forget the ability of the poor to secure cheap transportation getting totally fucked over by Cash For Clunkers.

        FUCK the poor…I was in the market for a cheap beater to drive to town that got better gas mileage than my pickup. Cheap beaters don’t exist anymore.

    2. +1 Marie Antoinette logic

    3. San Antonio also passed an ordinance that makes it illegal to give anything to panhandlers. They built some homeless camp on the edge of downtown (which is not a popular thing amongst the homeless population) and are attempting to force all homeless to abide by the rules of the city or be ticketed (along with the person handing cash or food or clothing to said homeless individual) and subsequently locked up for failure to appear, etc. It’s just more proggy, retarded shit all the way down as we attempt to make over the city to become Austin Junior.

      Don’t get me started on the repeatedly voted down by taxpayers plan to build a downtown rail-based streetcar system to serve….who the fuck knows…so that we can be “MOAR LIKE EUROPE!!!!!”.

  9. Is it legal to give away deep dish to a gay Mexican wedding?

    1. Not if they’re homeless.

    2. Yes but your gay friends will hate you for bringing such an abomination to a wedding.

    3. It better not be if there was pot present for the nuptials.

      1. Are pot-induced munchies enough to make deep dish palatable? I doubt it.

        1. Mezcal helps.

  10. It was not a crackdown on sharing food with the needy. It was a crackdown on using property that doesn’t belong to her to share food*, in a manner that interferes with other people’s ability to use and enjoy public property. If this woman had conducted the mass feedings on her own property or on property whose owner gave permission, there would be no problem.

    * with people who may or may not actually be needy, as detailed in this excellent Peter Bagge article that Reason seems to have forgotten about despite it being in their own archives.

    1. Porque Pig|4.18.15 @ 9:05AM|#
      “It was not a crackdown on sharing food with the needy. It was a crackdown on using property that doesn’t belong to her to share food*,”

      Pedant asshole gonna pedant, right asshole?

      1. Tulpa’s gonna have to step up his game to compete with what Buttplug said last night:

        Palin’s Buttplug|4.17.15 @ 10:30PM|#

        You defend Bush by saying Obama is worse. Even you cannot be that stupid, Suthenboy.

        Dark Lord of the Cis|4.17.15 @ 10:42PM|#

        This maybe the single dumbest thing you’ve ever posted. Pure fucking sophistry

        1. I missed that. I gave up and went to bed.

        2. That is great:
          ‘You hate so and so, therefore you must love Hitler!’

      2. Mr. Linkedin clearly chose that framing to make his position seem more attractive and harder to oppose. Pointing out such sophistry tactics is not pedantry. Neither is pointing out your fondness for thought-terminating cliches.

        1. Porque Pig|4.18.15 @ 9:21AM|#
          “[…]Neither is pointing out your fondness for thought-terminating cliches.”

          You don’t need help, there.

      3. Porque Pig is the sort of human being who would call the cops on his neighbor for letting their kids walk outside alone.

    2. Public property belongs to everyone, you twit.

      1. In some abstract sense, yes. But collectively-held property must be managed by a single entity (in this case the democratically-elected govt) to avoid the tragedy of the commons. You can’t decide on your own to blacktop over a patch of grass in a public park because you want a basketball court there.

        In theory, the land belonging to the gun club I am a member of “belongs to everyone” in the club. But that doesn’t mean I can shoot .50 BMG on the pistol caliber range. The club elects a board of directors to make those decisions. Sound familiar?

        1. Yeah it sounds familiar.

          Explain to me how I can opt out of the public arrangement like you can opt out of your gun club membership.

          1. So you think you should be able to blacktop over part of a public park so you can play basketball on it?

            I know that citing the coercive differences between govt and private actors is the standard response to analogies here, but it doesn’t seem relevant in this case. Well, unless you think you should be able to blacktop over part of a public park so you personally can play BB.

            1. That’s not what I said. I was merely pointing out that your association with your gun club can be terminated by you if you don’t like the terms of the agreement. Taxpayers don’t have that luxury and their free association rights in this case are subject to a tyranny of the majority.

            2. Picnics are illegal in the park? Who knew?

          2. *crickets*

            1. Ha! Guess porky can tell when someone is about to make fun of him.

    3. * with people who may or may not actually be needy, as detailed in this excellent Peter Bagge article that Reason seems to have forgotten about despite it being in their own archives.

      So the giver is no longer allowed to determine who she, on her own, believes is needy or not? Is there a government formula she is supposed to use?

      I may think someone is needy that society at large doesn’t believe is needy. Does that mean I should be excluded by law from giving them some of my charity? That’s stupid as fuck.

      1. I don’t care what she thinks. If she is feeding them because she thinks they are the lost royal descendants of the throne of Liechtenstein, that’s fine, but don’t flipping tell me I have to assume she’s right.

        The law prohibits mass feedings to random people, period. It has nothing to do with whether the feeder thinks they’re needy.

        1. “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. ” — Anatole France

          1. Wow. Just wow.

            You realize that Mssr. France was a communist and that quote was intended to mock classical liberals and their principle of equality before the law?

            Just put on the Che shirt and get it over with.

          2. I mean, I would think that the opposition to laws against “stealing loaves of bread” would make a libertarian who cares about property rights take a step back.

        2. The law prohibits mass feedings to random people

          Which, if true, is a idiotic law that shouldn’t exist.

          But rulez is rulez, right Tulpa?

        3. The law prohibits mass feedings to random people I don’t like the looks of, period.

          FTFY. Because without that qualification, you just prohibited restaurants.

          1. If most restaurants were not on private property, and gave away food, that would be a great analogy.

    4. Yeah, I’m sure if your neighbor decided to feed the homeless in her front lawn after being booted from the park, you’d be down with that.

      Fuck, you’d be calling up everyone at City Hall demanding that they use zoning laws to prevent your neighbor from using their property as they see fit.

    5. Who cares if they are “needy” or not? They were hungry and someone tried to feed them.

      This wasn’t a public nuisance charge; it’s a form of turf warfare.

    6. It was a crackdown on using property that doesn’t belong to her to share food

      The food truck from which she serves was permitted.

      Try again.

      1. But they weren’t using the permitted food truck that time, they were using another vehicle.

        1. Yeah, I didn’t see that in the article. Hmph.

      2. Tulpa’s got that covered too, he hates food trucks too, because, reasons.

      3. I was actually referring to the park that she was conducting the mass feeding in.

  11. OT: Shi’ite militiaman vows to turn ISIS fighters into “slurpees”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6yDviK5E4

    1. Turning them into pilots worked pretty well.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK_T7kpghfA

  12. Sharing restaurant-quality food with the homeless and less fortunate “without a permit.”

    Emphasis added. So, run it through a blender first?

    1. Restaurant-quality food is full of salt and other bad stuff that makes it taste good. Can’t be giving that shit away.

    2. Those are Linnekin’s words, not the law’s or the cops’.

      1. Those are Linnekin’s words, not the law’s or the cops’.

        Those are Porky’s words, not Rich’s or useful.

  13. Let’s see if I can “think” like an authoritarian who wants to justify this:

    Food giveaways attract homeless people and crime which depress property values. Depressed property values hurt working families and lead to decreased revenues which could be used to educate children and fix roads. The government has the right to intervene in anything that affects commerce and a duty to promote the general welfare.

    1. How cute that the guy claiming I need to “argue in good faith” and “apologize for being dishonest” yesterday is strawmanning his ass off today.

      1. Oh really?

        “homeless people depress property values”

        Despite evidence from numerous studies over the past 20 years, neighborhoods continue to vigorously fight supportive housing arrangements for the homeless on the basis of property values and/or a fear of crime.

        link

        Huh. It looks like my “strawman” turns out to be a widespread belief. Fancy that!

        1. That was one sentence out of your strawman. You need to find somebody arguing all three sentences.

          And of course, the strawman was only part of the sophistry of your post — you also implied that all people supporting the law are authoritarians who hold the opinions expressed in those three sentences.

          1. It’s a mash-up of things I have heard real people say. People who support laws to suppress harmless behavior are authoritarians.

            I think people who play very loud music in their cars are rude and annoying, but I don’t demand they be punished by the police. That’s because I’m not an authoritarian who demands the world be conformed to my preferences.

            1. Bzzzzzt. You can’t mash together things said by different people and claim someone thinks all of them simultaneously.

              Your third sentence is a common leftist belief of course, but it’s unlikely to be held by someone who believes the first sentence also.

              1. I did not claim that was a real quote. I pretended to be an authoritarian and spoke accordingly. And of course, the reason a real authoritarian like you gets so riled up about it is because I was on the mark.

                1. I did not claim that was a real quote. I pretended to be an authoritarian and spoke accordingly. And of course, the reason a real authoritarian like you gets so riled up about it is because I was on the mark.

                  Forget it, Derp. It’s Tulpey Town…

                  1. Freedom! Horrible freedom!

                    Tuply-poo wets his pants at the thought of people exercising choice.

              2. Bzzzzzt. You can’t mash together things said by different people and claim someone thinks all of them simultaneously.

                Bzzzzzt. You can’t quote random things and claim someone thinks all of them simultaneously.

              3. You can do pretty much what you want here. Hell, Porque, they even let you comment.

      2. How cute that the guy claiming I need to “argue in good faith” and “apologize for being dishonest” yesterday is strawmanning his ass off today.

        How cute that the guy claiming we all need to “argue in good faith” and “apologize for being dishonest” yesterday is strawmanning his ass off today.

    2. Food giveaways attract homeless people and crime which depress property values.

      This is the reason. The rest is just dressing to convince others and ease the conscience. Who wants vagrants littering the streets?

    3. You forgot to somehow work in the ‘health’ angle in there. As in, if you give them food they can get sick on they will be a drain on Obamacare. Other than that, I give it an ‘A’.

  14. Looks like Tulpa’s mom is letting him use the computer again.

      1. Ha, ha. Stoopid ‘coon.

        1. Ha, ha. Stoopid ‘coon.

          OMG OMG OMG RAYCISS!!!1!11eleventy-one

          *grabs paper bag, ruins to fainting couch*

          1. Why would you ruin a perfectly good fainting couch? Those aren’t easy to find any more, you know.

            1. What ?

              Every college classroom has them installed at taxpayer expense.

  15. In 2011, I focused on arrests in Orlando of people sharing food with those in need. In 2012, I blasted Philadelphia for its ban and argued that such bans are unconstitutional.


    In 2013, I took on proposals to enact bans in Chicago and Seattle. Last year, I called out Birmingham, Ala., for “barr[ing] a local pastor from sharing food with the homeless from a church-owned vehicle because he doesn’t have? a food truck permit.”


    I’ve also been quoted elsewhere blasting such rules. A 2012 Los Angeles Times piece, which also quoted me…

    Half of this post is spent mentioning previous posts you made. You also “blasted” twice. This is not just lazy, this is homeless person lazy.

    1. Have you ever read a blog before?

  16. Feds Spent $410,265 Studying ‘Satisfaction’ Levels of Young Gay Men’s First Time

    Project examining the ‘meaning and function’ of first ‘penetrative same-sex sexual experiences’

    “Prior work has demonstrated that same-sex relationship trajectories support the development of self-esteem in young gay and bisexual men, while opposite same-sex relationships may be associated with homonegativity,” a grant for the project, which began in 2012, states. “Little is known about the meaning and function of first same-sex experience in [African-American] AA adolescent men and whether satisfaction with first penetrative same-sex experience impacts sexual trajectories.”

    “The goal of this project is to understand the meaning and function of first same-sex sexual experience and to prospectively be able to assess its impact on subsequent sexual experiences, young adult sexual health and health protective behaviors,” the grant said.

    The project has cost taxpayers $410,265 so far, with funding not set to expire until May 2016.

    The study is also examining the satisfaction levels of young gay men during their first time.

    1. Nothing.

      Left.

      To.

      Cut.

    2. while opposite same-sex relationships may be associated with homonegativity,”

      What the hell does this mean. I am referring to both “opposite same-sex relationships” and “homonegativity”. I am guessing “homonegativity” is similar to electronegativity, where the really gay ones have a greater pull on the bisexuals than weakly “attracting” straights.

      “Little is known about the meaning and function of first same-sex experience in [African-American] AA adolescent men and whether satisfaction with first penetrative same-sex experience impacts sexual trajectories.”

      So basically this study is trying to find out if enjoyment of an activity leads to an increase in frequency of said activity.

      1. I think it means we are paying for some old queens to woo virgin rent boys.

      2. Half a million bucks to ask people questions? No, this study is solely for the purpose of acquiring money.

        Yeah, nothing left to cut. Would someone please knock the evil hag Pelosi’s dentures down her throat.

        1. +1 first-time experience for which we could find plenty of funding to examine the meaning and function

    3. Gays utter more ‘oooos’ than ‘ahhhsss’ while banging the shit of each other while straight folk prefer to ‘moan’ but not ‘groan.’

      Conclusion: The sexual experience for humans is both raw and complex thus necessitating further studies.

    4. sexual trajectories

      Now, *that* is a learned expression.

      1. You have to pretty it up Rich or you can’t get the big grants.

        Sexual trajectories gets your $400K. Money shot gets you a few thousand hits on youporn.

    5. “Little is known about the meaning and function of first same-sex experience in [African-American] AA adolescent men”

      Lol

      they could have saved half a million just hanging out in the local prison shower room.

    6. This study reads like it’s a jobs programs that supplies some gay “researchers” with spending money to seduce young boys.

    7. “Project examining the ‘meaning and function’ of first ‘penetrative same-sex sexual experiences'”

      So many government analogies…

  17. In Libertopia, there would be no such thing as public property, and this woman would have to obtain permission from the owner of the park to feed people on the property. There are already examples of private property open to the public, and vanishingly few of those spots allow mass homeless feedings because of the adverse effects it has on other people’s use of the property. Yet somehow we demand that the government manage public property in a stupider way than private owners do.

    1. And yet for some reason, it’s OK for TOP MEN to run soup kitchens and homeless shelters.

      I feel a great disturbance in the Derp, as if a million retards cried out for cake and were suddenly silenced.

      I fear someone terribly stupid is here.

      1. We should be cautious.

      2. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are mostly private-owned, and even the publicly-run ones don’t occupy space that’s supposed to be used by non-homeless people.

        You are becoming that which you hate.

        1. On the other hand, I bet you have no problem when the tables are reversed.If the government decides it’s gonna use your property without your consent what are you ginna do about it, eh? Go write to your local politician? Democracy hasn’t figured out a way to deal with ‘fuck you that’s why’.

          http://globalnews.ca/news/1940…..mailboxes/

          Canada Post didn’t ‘consult’ anybody. They had this plan in their heads and were going to implement no matter what. I love how they cynically say ‘we want to hear from Canadians’ when all along they knew they were going to ram it through. Canada Post, for the record, turned a $190 million profit.

          1. In the US we have the takings clause of the 5th amendment, which of course is not perfect, but it’s something.

            If you all want to get a constitutional amendment passed which guarantees the right to feed random people in parks and make life hell for any normal people who want to use said park, go for it.

            1. I’ve been in parks during food giveaways. It was not “hell”. In fact, I took a free meal myself.

              And hey, while you’re playing Dr. Tulpa, Constitutional Scholar, maybe you should look up this thing called the 9th amendment, which says people have rights in addition to what is specifically listed.

              1. So you were a jerk pretending to be homeless? Color me unsurprised.

                The ninth amendment is not some sort of rights-ATM that you can make up rights from thin air with. There has to be evidence of widespread, approaching universal, recognition.

                1. Oh my god you are an asshole.

                  The free food in parks (or soup kitchens or whatever) is generally available to all comers. You aren’t defrauding the people giving away the food.

                  Are you just unable to understand that some people are kind and loving and charitable or what?

            2. ‘make life hell’

              Progressive are the strangest species to ever grace the planet.

              Only they can take a good act by fellow humans and twist into being something from hell because the state isn’t involved.

              I’ve been to such events and let me tell you, if you don’t believe in good ‘vibes’ and ‘spirits’ it is witnessing such acts they make you rethink that.

              Lord me.

              1. If the state were luring throngs of homeless (or pretend homeless) into my favorite park I would be pissed too.

                1. The feeding was late at night when the park was empty. I was not pretending to be homeless- they gave food to whoever stood in line. I was passing by and I happened to be hungry.

                  But sure, go ahead and nitpick, strawman, change the subject, etc. You’ve been doing it for so long, why stop now?

                2. Porque Pig|4.18.15 @ 10:21AM|#
                  “If the state were luring throngs of homeless (or pretend homeless) into my favorite park I would be pissed too.”

                  “Your” favorite park, slime bag? I hope they piss on “your” favorite picnic table.

                3. “Porque Pig|4.18.15 @ 10:21AM|#

                  If the state were luring throngs of homeless (or pretend homeless) into my favorite park I would be pissed too.”

                  A progressive is always shown to be an evil hate filled eliteist when their mask slips. Tulpa would perfer, through force of arms, that the homeless not have access to the parks that might inhibit his clandestine sexual trysts. What’s a few hungry people against a gay mans right to suck a dick in a public park at night ? Eh Tupla ?.

                  I suppose for society’s sake that you being gay is a net benefit since you are less likely to pollute the gene pool.

              2. There’s nothing particularly progressive about Tulpa. Just pure authoritarian. Feeding people in the park might annoy some asshole like him occasionally, so it should never be allowed. Even in a park that is usually empty or populated by homeless people.

                I don’t think they are setting up their food in the middle of some kids’ soccer game or something.

                1. There’s nothing particularly progressive about Tulpa. Just pure authoritarian.

                  What a joke. I’m one of the few libertarians remaining here.

                  The knee-jerk anti-govt animus that pervades this blog is not libertarianism. There are situations where govt is the protector of liberty; unfortunately that is the exception rather than the rule these days, but when you all go crazylike because the govt did something, without thinking through what was actually done, it harms the liberty movement because it makes ordinary people tune us out.

                  Feeding people in the park might annoy some asshole like him occasionally, so it should never be allowed. Even in a park that is usually empty or populated by homeless people.

                  It also annoys an “asshole” like Reason artist Peter Bagge.

                  I don’t think they are setting up their food in the middle of some kids’ soccer game or something.

                  But under your preferred regime of recognizing a sacred natural right to feed, how is such an eventuality going to be prevented?

                  1. Porque Pig|4.18.15 @ 11:27PM|#
                    “What a joke. I’m one of the few libertarians remaining here”

                    You’re a lying sack of shit.

            3. It’s the little kids that make parks hell for normal people. They should stay home and watch TV or play video games.

        2. Tulpa sez: “Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are mostly private-owned, and even the publicly-run ones don’t occupy space that’s supposed to be used by non-homeless people.”

          Yeah, and I’m sure they had to grovel to government and got permission to operate, unlike the dangerous anarchist in the article.

          And that’s the real reason for the ticket: not kow-towing to the almighty state.

          1. It has NOTHING to do with ‘safety’ or anything else. It’s just force by other means.

          2. Funny how the state only punishes the mass feedings. If it were merely a matter of the state forcing people to obey, you’d expect that they’d regulate the millions of other things people do in parks.

            1. They don’t?

              Huh.

        3. “Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are mostly private-owned

          Really?

          i suppose. Most of the ones I’ve volunteered in for the last 20 years were located in church basements. Catholic! its not that I’m biased towards them, but it does seem that in NYC at least, they happened to have cornered that market.

          And they’re paid for by ‘donations’ and fundraising drives. they might get some support from the county police dept as well, as i’ve noted over the years that 50% of the other volunteers were actually there for “community service” purposes. Maybe the cops are catholics and just nudge the ne’er do wells in that direction.

          Neither here nor there. I think the interesting philosophical question here is,

          “if Tulpa were being ass-raped by a homeless person in a park, Would It Make a Sound (that anyone would care about)?”

          1. I volunteer for two soup kitchens, one public and the other private. The private one is funded by some corporations and local businesses and gets most of its food from private donations from local grocery stores (Kings, Shop Rite, and Whole Foods). It’s located in the basement of a church. The quality of the food and cooking (all done by volunteers) is about 1000x better at the private one, and is thus much more popular with people who actually want to eat.

            We also give out food baskets on Fridays that include fresh fruit and veggies. Very popular with the illegals. 🙂

          2. “if Tulpa were being ass-raped by a homeless person in a park, Would It Make a Sound (that anyone would care about)?”

            I’ll need $410,265 to find out.

            1. +10 Bonus points for tying that back in.

          3. Really?

            i suppose. Most of the ones I’ve volunteered in for the last 20 years were located in church basements. Catholic! its not that I’m biased towards them, but it does seem that in NYC at least, they happened to have cornered that market.

            And they’re paid for by ‘donations’ and fundraising drives. they might get some support from the county police dept as well, as i’ve noted over the years that 50% of the other volunteers were actually there for “community service” purposes. Maybe the cops are catholics and just nudge the ne’er do wells in that direction.

            So yes, they are privately owned. Thank you for agreeing with me.

        4. Porque Pig|4.18.15 @ 9:51AM|#
          “[…]don’t occupy space that’s supposed to be used by non-homeless people.”

          Notice there is a presumption that something is “supposed” to be X. Who do you think makes that choice?
          Asshole, you’ve become what we hate a loooong time ago.

          1. Homeless people are not part of the public, so they aren’t allowed to be anywhere except home, which they don’t have.

          2. Notice there is a presumption that something is “supposed” to be X. Who do you think makes that choice?

            The entity which manages the property in question on behalf of the multi-person owner.

            I would say go back to Libertarianism 101 but there may be some remedial classes needed.

  18. Firearms meets Fracking? = California Spontaneously Combusting

    Don’t worry, only a chain gang* was injured

    (*didn’t realize ‘enlightened’ California was still rocking it Cool Hand Luke style)

    In fact the blaze was sparked by Sheriffs dept as well, so the entire incident seems to be nothing but a combination of Good Intentions gone-wrong. But then I already said “California”.

  19. The word “American” had a poetic connotation of a free people in charge of their government. I can’t bring myself to use it to describe US citizens.

    1. Citizens?

      I think you mean “subjects”.

      1. “Permits, please.”

  20. Next up for Tulpa: defending free speech zones.

    1. On private property, such as shopping malls, why not have free speech zones?

      Do you have a problem with restrictions on parades? Howard A. Stern complained that parades were allowed in Manhattan at all, given their terrible disruption to traffic.

      In the case of food donation in a park at night, that problem doesn’t pertain. The excuse frequently given for that sort of thing is that then the municipality is obligated to provide security in excess of what would ordinarily be required off-hours, and that you’re not allowed to waive that desideratum?same as forbidding swimming at beaches after hours because then they’d need to hire another lifeguard.

      1. Or you could, you know, swim at your own risk.

        1. But there are 2 problems with that. #1 is the untoward development of tort law to make it very difficult to disclaim liability. This is an intractable problem, because it’s a development not of enacted law, which could easily be unenacted, but a diffuse change in the legal culture. Of course I’d like to change the legal culture, but that’s going to take many years of activism relating to law faculties, because academia is a tough nut to crack, preserving its status quo very compactly. The other way to approach the problem is by the cruder means of enacting arbitrary exemptions, playing havoc w due process in order to grease the squeakiest wheels.

          #2 is paternalism. There is a broad sense in advanced societies that people who’ve gotten themselves, no matter how, a bad result or position must be helped out, & that the only alternative is to prevent people from getting into such positions. Sometimes that alternative is taken as a cost-saving measure. This dilemma is the cause of maybe half or a majority of the things we struggle against.

          1. 1. Kill all the lawyers.
            2. Kill all the nannies.

            Seriously though, you get more of what you incentivise. If there is no downside to sueing, there will be more of it, and more lawyers, and more courts…

            Loser pays. Or better still, loser’s lawyer pays. (Just joking about the lawyer paying part, but the thought of it makes me smile.)

            Protecting people isn’t a function of government. Protecting their rights is. It’s become an expectation (moral hazard?) that the government will bail your ass out when, through your own poor judgment, you place said ass in a crack. If you want to do a root cause analysis of paternalism it’s the career politician, buying votes with free shit that falls outside the scope of legitimate governance.

            1. No, it’s not the politicians, it’s the voters, basically people in gen’l. The adverse legal climate you can blame on the legal elite. The adverse paternalism/maternalism climate isn’t the fault of any elite, it’s diffuse in the culture. It’s not vote-buying, because there’s nobody raking in dough when gov’t mandates unemployment insurance, for instance. It really is popular, collective will. It could be vote buying in the near term when unemployment benefits are retroactively extended (buying votes from the sector that happens to be collecting then & has benefits extended), but the general practice of mandating unemployment insurance does not have a beneficiary class.

              1. It’s not vote-buying, because there’s nobody raking in dough when gov’t mandates unemployment insurance, for instance. It really is popular, collective will.

                People look to government to relieve them of responsibility for their own actions. Politicians, instead of saying, no, that’s not our job, attempt to bribe them for votes. I don’t blame people for wanting free shit. I blame government for attempting to provide it to them knowing they cannot.

                1. I doubt that many people were thinking that when unemployment insurance laws were enacted. Mostly they just thought it was the right thing to do for other people. People weren’t thinking, oh, yeah, a bribe to lose my job. Many of those who thought unemployment insurance was a good thing to have had already bought it for themselves.

                  I don’t think a good case can be made that the 47%, or whatever it is (in the USA or any other democratic republic), makes the gov’t go around.

      2. The excuse frequently given for that sort of thing is that then the municipality is obligated to provide security in excess of what would ordinarily be required off-hours,

        Or that people trying to use the park don’t like being accosted with demands for money.

        I don’t know where you guys who never had a problem with homeless and faux-homeless beggars in parks live. Maybe you could arrange a homeless-person trade with, well, every large city I’ve ever been in. We need to spread around the polite homeless some more. Cause once you get in the metropolitan statistical area, every place where lots of normal people stop (gas stations, parks, near tourist dests) is brimming with beggars unless they’re constantly faced with threats of arrest and/or privately-provided violence. And encouraging them to hang at those places is only making the problem worse.

  21. But with no special permit for giving food away to people who can’t afford to buy it

    That wasn’t the issue. It’s already been reported here, as well as at the link you supplied, that the problem was using the wrong vehicle to deliver the food that time. They have a licensed food truck, but that wasn’t it, & for some reason they weren’t using the food truck in that case.

    1. “[…]It’s already been reported here, as well as at the link you supplied, that the problem was using the wrong vehicle to deliver the food that time.[…]”

      Of COURSE that was it all along, and here no one noticed! It couldn’t possibly be some formality dreamt up by someone interested in exercising power, now could it?
      Uh, do you have the proper forms to be posting on the innertubez? If not, well, you’ll just have to….

      1. Then explain the circumstances reported, which were that previously the police had smiled & waved at them while they dispensed food (apparently from the specially-licensed vehicle), but this time they were ticketed (in the unlicensed one).

        1. Lack of complaints previously, perhaps?

          1. The lack of complaints just happened to coincide w the time they were using their licensed food truck?

  22. Masta is the only savior. As with criminality, masta doesnt like competition.

  23. Articles like this always remind me of Grapes of Wrath and how many of the characters are too good to accept charity but at the same time blame everyone for their problems and are too stupid or bitter to solve them. It sums up the problem with charity for progressives. It’s bad because accepting it requires humility and gratitude because the people who are serving you are choosing to be there. Preferably you should be getting free stuff force-ably taken from the people who have wronged you.

    1. Furthermore, that humility incentivises getting off charity.

      Amazing how stuff works so much better without government interference.

      1. That too. The only reason to make it completely comfortable for people to get free stuff from others is if you never want that dynamic to end.

    2. But that doesn’t seem to be the dynamic operating in this case. The sources don’t report anything about any coerced (i.e. gov’tal) alternative to the charity. Rather, it seems to be either, or a combination, of 2 things:

      1. Sheer nit-picking relating to the type of license for a particular vehicle, possibly ticketing for profit.

      2. Bums are undesirable.

      1. Number 2

    3. The Grapes of Wrath was a great novel, but a disjointed political statement. Steinbeck is a great writer (East of Eden was a masterpiece) but I’d like to see him write a sequel in which the Joad family moves to the Soviet Union to escape the evils of capitalism.

  24. You all were much too polite to Tulpa. Fuck you, Tulpa, you morally defective peice of shit.

    1. He really does make you question the NAP.

      What a useless, worthless cunt.

      1. Mostly it just makes me laugh. He’s got nothing left but stupid contrarian asshole.

        Trying to play detective with that poor woman in Canada the other day was just pathetic.

        1. Right, not taking the word of a sob story just because it fits one’s ideology is SO pathetic.

          And she did make false statements about voting NDP when she had never even voted in Canada. Something nobody else in that thread was willing to dig into. Sorry for not valuing ignorance.

          1. Fuck you, Tulpa, you morally defective peice of shit.

  25. just before I looked at the draft four $5520 , I be certain that my neighbours mother woz truly erning money in their spare time at there labtop. . there great aunt has been doing this 4 only about sixteen months and resently paid for the morgage on their apartment and bought a gorgeous BMW M3 . look at this website …. http://www.Jobs-Fashion.Com

  26. The government screws yearn for the wondrous days of the Great Depression when citizens happily surrendere liberties for bowls of soup.

  27. If you want to see what happens to cities that go out of their way to be “nice” to the homeless, visit Portland, where in some parts of the city, you have to step over human feces that litters the sidewalk. Or visit San Francisco, where you can weave your way through guys holding, “Why lie? I need a beer” signs all along Fisherman’s Wharf. Liberals fetishize homelessness. By and large, the homeless aren’t some downtrodden folks who had a run of bad luck. They’re alcoholics, drug addicts, and people with mental illnesses who hang out on the streets as a matter of choice. Some years ago, activists rented a bunch of apartments to provide housing to the homeless in NYC, and – surprise! – they couldn’t fill them. They *begged* homeless people to move into the apartments, to no avail. The homeless were perfectly content with their life “outdoors” — something most of us can’t comprehend.

    Giving homeless people things that make homelessness more comfortable or tolerable does two things: it enables the aberrant behavior, and it invites more homeless people to your homeless-friendly city. Why be homeless in Kalamozoo when you can go somewhere where you can get free meals and blankets and a place to sleep, and save your panhandling money for beer? If you want to help the homeless, offer them addiction counseling and mental health services. Handing out food, although it feels like the right thing to do, only contributes to the problem.

    1. The Quebec government in its futile effort to end homelessness claims in an ad ‘no one choose to be homeless.’

      We KNOW as a matter of fact this is not true. And since it’s not true, the initiative is based on a false premise and doomed to fail.

    2. We do hear from time to time about people who wind up out of a home because of a divorce, a fire, a death, or some other unforeseen & unlikely circumstance. Sometimes it’s somebody who made a bad but not crazy (maybe even just exceptionally unlucky) judgment by moving out on specul’n that didn’t pan out. They’re not the typical case, though.

      I had a couple of friends who lived for a while out of their respective cars. One was a lifestyle choice, did it for years, even fixed up a couple of vans to move into nicer digs. Some of you may know him: Ed Hughes (Huser). He did eventually move into more conventional dwellings, but now is in a nursing home. The other was a friend from grad school (Microbiology & then Biochemistry) who was something of a dreamer & schemer, and lived in his car a short while after his last scheme failed, but by that time he had a lymphoma and wound up in a nursing home too with a succession of resulting strokes & dementia before his death, survived by 2 daughters & a wife who’d been a childhood sweetheart but before his illness divorced him after getting fed up w his mendacious scheming.

      I’ve been close to becoming homeless for economic reasons the past few yrs., largely a product of inertia & living in an expensive area (NYC). Overeducated & underemployed.

      Homeless, however, is not foodless, and food doesn’t get you a home, so this issue of feeding bums is always something of a fleahead scratcher.

    3. Here comes the cavalry.

    4. Remember the homeless, shoeless guy in NYC?

      The cop bought him a pair of shoes.

      Two days later homeless guy “loses” them.

      Its obvious he doesn’t like shoes for some reason.

      Oh, and they found out the homeless guy owned an apartment, too.

  28. The trolls aren’t even interesting or well reasoned anymore. They either spam nonsense like Hihn or argue points that mean nothing just to fuck up threads like Poque Pig and Bo or just spout the Dem party line like Tony and PB. No one wants an echo chamber but it would be nice to have real discussions and not the idiocy delivered by these particular morons.

    1. Porque Pig is a longtime authoritarian nutcase who used to go by Tulpa.

      He frequently used socks in discussions to agree with himself. When he was exposed he started this “different nick every week” schtick to fool people into responding to him.

      1. He frequently used socks in discussions to agree with himself.

        Oh look, another person who likes to lie.

        1. Fuck off, tulpa.

    2. John is about the only non-libertarian around who could engage in somewhat reasonable discussion, but he’s started getting spammy and hysterical.

      I’ve seen a couple people claim that joefromlowell was an honest progressive, but I came in at the tail end of his tenure and he seemed like an elitist douchebag who only came here to scold about externalities and SOMALIAZZZZZ!!!!!! I’m pretty sure Jackand Ace is joe. Either way, he’s definitely not interested in discussion.

      1. John is probably getting hysterical because year 7-8 of a president you hate is the worst time.

  29. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    Go to tech tab for work detail ????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  30. Elitists .

  31. my best friend’s mom makes $63 hourly on the internet . She has been fired for nine months but last month her income was $16725 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at here………………. http://www.work-cash.com

  32. Solution: hand each homeless a penny.

    Charge a penny for the meal.

    1. That’s good, yes!

      Alternate solution: Put food in bags. In sight of homeless, put food-in-bags, in a trash cans or dumpster, and say, “PLEASE, Mr. or Mrs. homeless person, do NOT pick this out of the trash! It’s good food, but it is trash, according to Government Almighty!” Wink-Wink, Nudge-Nudge…

      This alternate solution even gets around the silly regs about having a 12-sink regulated kitchens with 12,000 Government-Almighty-granted licenses…

    2. Perfect. ‘take a penny leave a penny’

  33. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week………….

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  34. If you have a permit to operate and sell food from a food truck, but it’s illegal to give food away, the solution is obvious — set the prices at a penny a plate for anyone who is homeless.

    If (when) the city objects, set the price to be the same the cheapest food item at the cheapest convenience store in the city.

    Eventually the city government will give it up as absurd, or they will drive their entire commercial tax base outside the city limits and no longer have the money for absurd enforcement.

  35. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  36. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

  37. The article author misses the point of free assosciation and urban regulation. The public can vote out leaders who are felt to be Nazi-like and mean, and also those who are believed to be promoting a presence of vagrancy in public locations where a plurality or majority of voters doesn’t want them.
    For a libertarian, this may be confusing, I don’t know. I certainly like a lot about libertarian ideas. But when I see libertarians hosting feed-ins and sleep ins on their lawns, I will still understand if neighbors choose to sell, and then move to communities such as the non-gated, but still restricted (by conduct rules and fees, not race or religion) community I live in now.
    The cost and rules maintain a given ambiance.
    Public spirited residents run for community president and block captain, and work to make things more scenic and in good repair. It works very well, and would have been intolerable for me when I was younger.
    Just as people decide where to live, the people of various cities disagree about feeding pigeons, and people. And both parties insist that they must be right. If you accept local leadership, you’ll get lots of variety. Let the residents of Miami keep approving more shelters, and let the residents of other places buy bus tickets to Miami for their vagrants, if they can afford to.

  38. But they have soup kitchens and homeless shelters so…what, they don’t want them cutting in on their territory? Or are they protecting the consumer?

    1. I mean they have to give a reason for it don’t they?

  39. So, this is a trend across the US. No food charity. WHY?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.