Philadelphia: No Love for the Homeless
Charities Continue Suit Against City's Ban on Feeding Homeless Outdoors
Last March, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter outlawed serving meals to the homeless in city parks, citing health concerns as the primary reason for the ban.
Chosen 300, a private charity with a mission to serve the city's homeless, is in the midst of a lawsuit against the ban. They insist that the new regulations are harmful to the homeless community.
"These laws are really designed to eliminate people out of plain view so that we can have this idea that the city doesn't have a homeless problem," said Chosen 300 executive director Brian Jenkins.
The ACLU, which sued and won a temporary injunction against the new law, said the real reason for the ban is to protect the city's image as a tourist destination.
The federal lawsuit will be brought to trial early next year and both the city and Chosen 300 are working to resolve the standoff out of court.
About 2 minutes. Shot by Joshua Swain. Produced by Amanda Winkler. Edited by Amanda Winkler and Jim Epstein.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"So, are these new rules really helping the homeless?"
That's not the aim. It's to get rid of homeless people. But the irony is that the best thing for the homeless is for them to not be in Philadelphia, which coincidentally is also the best thing for everyone else.
They're not solving the homeless problem they're just moving it....
Wasn't that an episode of South Park?
"the homeless community."
WIH is that?
I don't know what Philly does in general about bums (ooops: 'The Homeless'[tm]), but SF used to go out of its way to manufacture them.
If you want something, subsidize it; that's what SF did.
That said, outlawing a private charity from offering food in X location sounds cold.
It's also about trying to change the image of the city.
The particular location they've made this law in response to is located in a very tourist-oriented section of town.
The best part is that outlawing public feeding still hasn't cleaned up that section, as a large number of homeless still congregate there.
you think that's the best part? You are a loon.
Who is dumb enough to be a bum in Philly this time of year?
Santa Monica (Skid Row by the Sea) is the place to be.
I can't think of a single barrier the homeless would face in relocating 4000 miles seasonally.
They must be stupid!
Well, a giant shit-load of them managed to find their way to Santa Monica.
Since taking the Dog from Philadelphia to Santa Barbara is $189, send $400 to me and I'll make sure a deserving denizen of the Ben Franklin Parkway median gets a one way ticket to pardise.
Seaonally?
No, you move to California...and you stay, cause it's fucking gorgeous.
Philadelphia is smelly, dirty, sticky and hot as balls in the summer.
In the winter it's smelly, dirty and cold as shit.
If I was homeless here, I'd save up the $200 for a one-way ticket to Welfare Paradise.
The Derider| 11.21.12 @ 8:41PM |#
"I can't think"
Yeah, deidiot, there's no doubt.
On one hand, feeding the homeless clearly has a negative externality in this case.
On the other hand, feeding hungry people is obviously utility enhancing.
The answer is a pigouvian tax on feeding the homeless, based on the location's impact on tourism. Let the market determine the most efficient places to feed the homeless by forcing charities to face the full costs of their actions.
The funny thing is he's completely serious
I'm really only semi-serious. This is a good example of a case where the externality is too small, and the enforcement costs too high to result in a more efficient outcome.
Air pollution is another matter.
Most crazy people are very serious.
Uh, clearly what we need to do is somehow shift the feeding to in front of city hall, so that the Philadelphi City Council can face the full costs of their actions.
It's completely torn up and fenced off now anyways. They're still right across the street at Love park like they have been for decades.
The Derider| 11.21.12 @ 8:39PM |#
"The answer is a pigouvian tax"
Deidiot, your answer to every question is a pigovian tax, and a pigovian tax has never been shown to be the answer to any question.
So I have this suggestion for you: Stuff it up your butt.
Yo, FUCK Nutter, and all of those corrupt bastards on the City Council.
Sometimes I hate my city.
Sometimes? Maybe you'd like Frank Rizzo back.
I'd prefer Goode, because explosions.
so who is keeping you there? Delta has a flight leaving every 15 minutes.
Man that really saddens me to think about it. Wow.
http://www.Privacy-Max.tk
Let them eat cake
Wow, there's a lot of hate for people with psychological disorders here.
Thank you very much