San Antonio gives Chow Train owner a ticket for feeding the homeless

[Blake]

".. Last fall, the city of San Antonio made headlines when then–police chief William McManus*announced*a plan to ticket people*if they were caught giving money to panhandlers. It was a mean proposal, and the public attention quickly killed the*potential ordinance.*But San Antonio’s discouragement of*charity and compassion toward the homeless seems to remain. Joan M. Cheever, who has been serving high-quality meals to the homeless in the city through her Chow Train food truck, learned that firsthand in early April.

As MySA.com reports:*
Joan Cheever, founder of the nonprofit mobile food truck known as the Chow Train, was cited last Tuesday by San Antonio police officers for feeding the homeless in Maverick Park.

Cheever has been serving restaurant-quality meals to the city’s homeless population for the past 10 years, and has been profiled on Rachel Ray’s cooking show for her charitable efforts.

Over the years, police officers have passed by and waved as she fed homeless people, but last Tuesday night four bike-patrol officers stopped in the park and gave Cheever a ticket that carries a potential fine of $2,000. Cheever has a food permit for her mobile truck, but she was cited for transporting and serving the food from a vehicle other than that truck.

Cheever*posted about*the permit situation on the Chow Train’s Facebook page, explaining that she used the licensed commercial mobile kitchen to prepare the food, then placed it in Health Department–approved catering equipment—it was merely the delivery of that food that happened in an unlicensed vehicle, she writes, noting that*pizza and sandwich*restaurants do that without trouble.*
"I ask you: What is the difference between food delivery services by restaurants and Dominoes pizza, Jimmy Johns and The CHOW TRAIN. Not one gosh darn thing except $$$."

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/san-antonio-gave-woman-2000-ticket-feeding-homeless

[Blake]

I concur with the ordinance although I think they drop the ticket here.

I don't like giving money to homeless out in the open. They should get to a shelter where they have a roof and food there.

[DMX7]

I concur with the ordinance although I think they drop the ticket here.

I don't like giving money to homeless out in the open. They should get to a shelter where they have a roof and food there.

As long as there are enough shelters with capacity.

[Blake]

As long as there are enough shelters with capacity.

yeah, i agree. There's no easy answer but I still lean towards being illegal to feed homeless in public.

[spursncowboys]

Starbucks, Valero, etc have to throw away all their food at the end of the night. Because San Antonio doesn't allow it. This is disgraceful and I hope the new mayor changes it, along with letting Uber in.

[Blake]

Starbucks, Valero, etc have to throw away all their food at the end of the night. Because San Antonio doesn't allow it. This is disgraceful and I hope the new mayor changes it, along with letting Uber in.

why does anyone use Uber? I still don't get the upside.

[boutons_deux]

why does anyone use Uber? I still don't get the upside.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/when-is-uber-cheaper-than-a-taxi.html

[spursncowboys]

why does anyone use Uber? I still don't get the upside. cheaper. quicker. app friendly. I don't use it but I think San Antonians should be able to.

[DMX7]

It's funny reading Uber's rants on the subject. I love how they say they create thousands of "jobs". LOL

[spursncowboys]

The Southpark episode about it was hilarious.

[Blake]

cheaper. quicker. app friendly. I don't use it but I think San Antonians should be able to.

Yeah, definitely quicker.

[Blake]

http://kxan.com/2014/11/06/uber-riders-upset-with-price-surges/

[boutons_deux]

It's funny reading Uber's rants on the subject. I love how they say they create thousands of "jobs". LOL

Like fast food and retail workers, just another no-benefits, no-future, low-paid work in the "gig economy".

[Slutter McGee]

http://kxan.com/2014/11/06/uber-riders-upset-with-price-surges/

God damn them for responding to supply and demand shocks with higher prices.

Price gouging is good. It is always good. It just sounds bad so everyone freaks out and stupid politicians on both sides realize they can score a few points by bashing it, setting price ceilings, and making it illegal....all which causes far more harm.

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

Hell even liberal god Paul Krugman understands that there is nothing wrong about it.


Which brings me to Uber, the smartphone-based car service. Uber, it turns out, doesn’t charge fixed prices; it practices surge pricing, in which prices depend on the state of demand. So when there’s a snowstorm or something that makes everyone want a car at the same time, prices go way up — sometimes sevenfold.
This makes a lot of sense from a rational economic point of view.


Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

Why most of the $100 million L.A. spends on homelessness goes to police

A report (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-cao-report-20150416-story.html) showing that more than half the $100 million the city of Los Angeles spends each year on homelessness goes to police demonstrates that the city is focused on enforcement rather than getting people off the streets, homeless advocates said Friday.

Sadly in today's system we have to wait until they commit a violent crime to get them 'help' in a jail cell, instead of involuntary housing.

"Supports what we've been saying for years that this city is doing almost nothing to advance housing solutions but continues down the expensive and inhumane process of criminalization that only makes the problem worse," said Becky Dennison of Los Angeles Community Action Network, a skid row advocacy group, in an email.

Almost 15,000 people the LAPD arrested in 2013 were homeless, or 14% of those arrested, according to the report from the city administrative office. Labor costs for the arrests were estimated between $46 million and $80 million.

Arrests are not the only tasks the LAPD takes on as an estimated 23,000 people continue to live in the streets, decades after Los Angeles became known as the nation's homeless capital. About $6 million in city money goes to the LAPD's mental evaluation unit, a team of mental health professionals and police that intervenes with mentally ill people and connects them to services.

An additional $6.7 million is allocated to the Safer Cities Initiative, a team of 71 officers deployed on skid row who frequently interact with scores of mentally ill homeless people arrayed on the sidewalk.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-cost-police-20150417-story.html

So at least in LA, keeping people homeless is a way of dumping taxpayer $100Ms on the police.

Analogous to the PIC buying politicians to keep the illegal immigrant situtation unsolved and to keep locking them up in PIC facilities paid for by taxpayers.

[Slutter McGee]

Honestly, to bring this back on topic, this is just another example of how overzealous regulatory enforcement tends to exist more when democrats are in control. Like they are in San Antonio.

Slutter McGee

[mrsmaalox]

Starbucks, Valero, etc have to throw away all their food at the end of the night. Because San Antonio doesn't allow it. This is disgraceful and I hope the new mayor changes it, along with letting Uber in.

The wastage of that food is also partially on the policies of the shelters and soup kitchens, they don't accept already prepared foods.

[spursncowboys]

The wastage of that food is also partially on the policies of the shelters and soup kitchens, they don't accept already prepared foods.

There were groups that used to drive to every Starbucks and collect. But yeah since it's against the law there not doing that.

[Blake]

Iirc, part of why they stopped giving away food at the end of the night is because some people that ate the food got sick and sued some stores.

[spursncowboys]

Iirc, part of why they stopped giving away food at the end of the night is because some people that ate the food got sick and sued some stores.
No they get rid of food long before it goes bad.

It still happens all over america. Just not in San Antonio.

[ElNono]

Hell even liberal god Paul Krugman understands that there is nothing wrong about it.

You might as well include the entire paragraph. You wouldn't want to be accused of cherry-picking...

This makes a lot of sense from a rational economic point of view — and it makes people totally furious. It turns out that people are OK with fluctuating prices when it’s really an impersonal market — but they get really angry at any hint that someone with whom they have some sort of ongoing relationship is exploiting their distress. In fact, Uber’s surge pricing is really bad public relations, and I won’t be surprised to see the company modify its strategy if only for marketing purposes.

[Blake]

No they get rid of food long before it goes bad.

It still happens all over america. Just not in San Antonio.

No, I'll stick with my statement that stores are afraid to get sued which is part of why they toss food at the end of the night.

They'd rather donate to food banks where they are mostly free of liability

[CosmicCowboy]

The problem for the stores and for the food banks is the time from when prepared food leaves the store until it gets to the food bank and then storage at the food bank. 4 hours between 40 and 140 and food can go bad quickly.

[spursncowboys]

The problem for the stores and for the food banks is the time from when prepared food leaves the store until it gets to the food bank and then storage at the food bank. 4 hours between 40 and 140 and food can go bad quickly.
Alot of that food is still in packaging. Plus that wasn't the intent of the law, or ordinance. It was to punish people for giving to panhandlers.

[CosmicCowboy]

Packaging doesn't really matter. The critters are already on the food and just dormant because of the storage temperature.

[spursncowboys]

Packaging doesn't really matter. The critters are already on the food and just dormant because of the storage temperature.
Well it seems to work fine in all the other cities.

[Slutter McGee]

You might as well include the entire paragraph. You wouldn't want to be accused of cherry-picking...

This makes a lot of sense from a rational economic point of view — and it makes people totally furious. It turns out that people are OK with fluctuating prices when it’s really an impersonal market — but they get really angry at any hint that someone with whom they have some sort of ongoing relationship is exploiting their distress. In fact, Uber’s surge pricing is really bad public relations, and I won’t be surprised to see the company modify its strategy if only for marketing purposes.

It really doesn't make any difference. Krugman recognizes that its not an issue economically, only a public relations issue thanks to politicians using it as political ammo. It really does sound bad and people just get pissed off as individuals. But on the aggregate price gouging is a good thing. He knows that. Dude is a fucking genius....has some fucked up political beliefs, but still a genius.

Slutter McGee

[ElNono]

It really doesn't make any difference. Krugman recognizes that its not an issue economically, only a public relations issue thanks to politicians using it as political ammo. It really does sound bad and people just get pissed off as individuals. But on the aggregate price gouging is a good thing. He knows that. Dude is a fucking genius....has some fucked up political beliefs, but still a genius.

I don't disagree that makes economic sense in a vacuum, but as he also points out, economic decisions rarely exist in a vacuum in the real world, that's how you end up with things like loss-leaders and all sorts of market distortions to prop up other areas (marketing, dividends, etc), and a lot of those distortions are not government induced.

IIRC, the only laws against price gouging include some sort of civilian emergency attached to them.

Also, I don't think I would call what Uber does "price gouging"... unless it's indeed during some sort of civilian emergency situation.

[Slutter McGee]

I don't disagree that makes economic sense in a vacuum, but as he also points out, economic decisions rarely exist in a vacuum in the real world, that's how you end up with things like loss-leaders and all sorts of market distortions to prop up other areas (marketing, dividends, etc), and a lot of those distortions are not government induced.

IIRC, the only laws against price gouging include some sort of civilian emergency attached to them.

Also, I don't think I would call what Uber does "price gouging"... unless it's indeed during some sort of civilian emergency situation.

I understand your point, But I disagree. When Uber raised prices in Australia during the possible hostage/terrorist crap everybody freaked out. It may not be "price gouging" but even in civilian emergencies it is still a stupid policy to go after them.

I will give you an example. After Katrina, some dude bought a few generators and drove them down to Louisiana where he sold them for way more than their value elsewhere. Everybody freaked out and got pissed at him for trying to "profit at other's misery" and eventually he was prosecuted for it.

So what if only rich people buy from him. That is rich people who don't use resources designed from poor people. If its legal then eventually others start bringing generators down trying to make a profit. More and more goods end up in an area that needs them. Eventually, as more goods come into the area, competition starts to take hold, and prices drop. Anti price gouging laws are the dumbest thing next to rent control.

Liberal or Conservative....almost no economists disagree. Including Krugman. But he does recognize other affects. I don't disagree. Still doesn't mean it is good policy.

Slutter McGee

[ElNono]

I understand your point, But I disagree. When Uber raised prices in Australia during the possible hostage/terrorist crap everybody freaked out. It may not be "price gouging" but even in civilian emergencies it is still a stupid policy to go after them.

I will give you an example. After Katrina, some dude bought a few generators and drove them down to Louisiana where he sold them for way more than their value elsewhere. Everybody freaked out and got pissed at him for trying to "profit at other's misery" and eventually he was prosecuted for it.

So what if only rich people buy from him. That is rich people who don't use resources designed from poor people. If its legal then eventually others start bringing generators down trying to make a profit. More and more goods end up in an area that needs them. Eventually, as more goods come into the area, competition starts to take hold, and prices drop. Anti price gouging laws are the dumbest thing next to rent control.

Liberal or Conservative....almost no economists disagree. Including Krugman. But he does recognize other affects. I don't disagree. Still doesn't mean it is good policy.

I agree anti-price gauging laws make absolutely no sense in pure economic terms. That said, civilian emergencies implicitly include a demand or supply shock. What you describe is building a market, and it's difficult to ascertain you can safely do that during an emergency, especially on the most sought after items. There's already looting, panic, even martial law in some cases. This is why laws against price gouging are directly tied to police power to preserve order.

[Slutter McGee]

I agree anti-price gauging laws make absolutely no sense in pure economic terms. That said, civilian emergencies implicitly include a demand or supply shock. What you describe is building a market, and it's difficult to ascertain you can safely do that during an emergency, especially on the most sought after items. There's already looting, panic, even martial law in some cases. This is why laws against price gouging are directly tied to police power to preserve order.

I plan on making a rational intelligent response...but I have now been drinking all day in anticipation of a certain spurs game. So I will answer you on this subject tomorrow.

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

How Uber surge pricing really works


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/17/how-uber-surge-pricing-really-works/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

[Nbadan]

Crowd Funding...

http://www.gofundme.com/chowtraindonation