Reply With Quote
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.
".. 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-po...eding-homeless
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.
yeah, i agree. There's no easy answer but I still lean towards being illegal to feed homeless in public.
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.
cheaper. quicker. app friendly. I don't use it but I think San Antonians should be able to.
It's funny reading Uber's rants on the subject. I love how they say they create thousands of "jobs". LOL
The Southpark episode about it was hilarious.
Yeah, definitely quicker.
Like fast food and retail workers, just another no-benefits, no-future, low-paid work in the "gig economy".
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.
ter McGee
even liberal god Paul Krugman understands that there is nothing wrong about it.
ter McGeeWhich 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.
Why most of the $100 million L.A. spends on homelessness goes to police
A report 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/l...417-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.
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.
ter McGee
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
