Feeding Homeless Outlawed

Quote:

Feeding homeless outlawed

ACLU calls measure unenforceable

By DAVID MCGRATH SCHWARTZ
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Gail Sacco, second from the right, hands out fruit and water at Huntridge Circle Park on Wednesday. The Las Vegas City Council passed an ordinance that would prohibit providing food to the homeless for free or a nominal fee in city parks.
Photos by K.M. Cannon.


Gail Sacco gets help from Duffy West unloading fruit from her car to be handed out at Huntridge Circle Park on Wednesday, the same day the Las Vegas City Council passed a ban on feeding the homeless or indigent people in public parks.


If someone looks like he could use a meal, be warned: Giving him a sandwich in a Las Vegas park could land you in jail.

The Las Vegas City Council passed an ordinance Wednesday that bans providing food or meals to the indigent for free or a nominal fee in parks.


The measure is an attempt to stop so-called "mobile soup kitchens" from operating in parks, where residents say they attract the homeless and render the city facilities unusable by families.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada called the ordinance blatantly unconstitutional, unenforceable and the latest attempt by the city to hide and harass the homeless instead of constructively addressing their plight.

"So the only people who get to eat are those who have enough money? Those who get (government) assistance can't eat at your picnic?" asked ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein. "I've heard of some rather strange and extreme measures from other cities. I've never heard of something like this. It's mind-boggling."

The city's new ordinance, which officials could begin enforcing as early as Friday, defines an indigent as a "person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive assistance" from the government under state law.

Mayor Oscar Goodman, who has been a vocal advocate of cracking down on the homeless in city parks, dismissed questions about how marshals, who patrol city parks, will identify the homeless in order to enforce the ordinance, the violation of which would be a misdemeanor.

"Certain truths are self-evident," Goodman said. "You know who's homeless."

City officials said they instituted the law in part because of recommendations from some who work with the homeless who say offering food separately from other services, such as counseling and drug treatment, is counterproductive.

"This is not a punishment; this is to help people," Goodman said. "The people who provide sandwiches have good intentions, but they're enabling people not to get the help that is needed."

Residents near Huntridge Circle Park, on Maryland Parkway near Charleston Boulevard, say people who bringing food to the homeless draw them to the area.

But one advocate who feeds the homeless at the park said she will continue to do so.

"I'm going to do whatever I think is necessary to keep people alive," said Gail Sacco.

Sacco has been cited twice while feeding the homeless, for holding a gathering of 25 or more people without a permit.

That ordinance is currently the subject of litigation by the ACLU of Nevada, and Gary Peck, the group's executive director, said the ordinance adopted Wednesday probably will be included in the lawsuit.

City Attorney Brad Jerbic said the city tried to negotiate with the ACLU and Sacco, including attempting to find a place where Sacco could provide food to the homeless.

Peck said negotiations "ended badly because, from our perspective, they're not negotiating in good faith. They're trying to figure out ways of making homeless invisible or kicking them out of our community."

Sacco said the city's approach has been to spout rhetoric and push the problem out of view, instead of offer constructive solutions.

"If the city and county and nonprofits are getting out there doing outreach to the people, then (the homeless) won't be at Circle Park and I won't have anyone to feed down there," Sacco said. "If they're just putting people in jail, the city is making it look like they are doing a wonderful job on the homeless issue. It's just a farce."

Sacco said in addition to providing food, she works to get the homeless housing, treatment, identification and jobs.

For the past month, the city has been cracking down on the homeless at Circle Park, arresting those inside the park before it opens at 7 a.m. and citing others for trespassing if they're on private property.

Neighbors have applauded the city's efforts, which have also included threats to increase the number of mentally ill homeless that they force to be hospitalized.

But Peck said despite residents' concerns, any sweep or crackdown has to be done in a legal manner. "It doesn't matter if they're unsightly, if neighbors don't like them. It doesn't trump the Constitution," he said.

The council unanimously passed the ordinance. Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian was absent.

Councilman Steve Wolfson, who last week raised concerns that the measure would prohibit someone from giving a sandwich to a homeless person, said after talking with Jerbic he felt comfortable with how the ordinance would be enforced.

"The marshals will get specialized training on enforcement," Wolfson said. "If you bought a couple of burgers and wanted to give them out, you technically would be in violation, but you wouldn't be cited."

Jerbic said police make judgment calls based on the severity of the crime, and this would be no different.

Lichtenstein said the city's statements were a clear indication they intend to use selective enforcement, which is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

I found this to be interesting because I see attempts to do similar things happen every now and then among the cities around me(luckily they never get beyond the planning stage for the most part). Personally I think this is one really f'd up and unenforcible law that as the ACLU says, is unconstitutional. But obviously enough influence was brought to bear to convince the government of Vegas otherwise. So what do you all think? Legal? Illegal? Moral? Immoral? Should we expect to see more cities try this if the legal challenges by the ACLU are shot down?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think as long as they provide a new place for homeless to gather and for people to give them food, its ok. A church seems to be a good place to me. I see both points here, and they both seem pretty valid.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Sounds like the article might be a bit biased.... but if the city really isn't offering any alternatives and enforcing a law that directly leads to starvation, I'd call that immoral.

Also, it seems to me like it would be illegal. The park is public... why can't you give food to people? Have homeless people become animals?

edit: i'm dyslexic... fixed.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Hmmm, as much as this law is a load of horseshit, I can see what they are trying to achieve. They want the public areas designed for families and children, safe for those people. I know I'd be a bit bothered if I'm having a picnic with my family, and across the sidewalk there's a gathering of homeless munching down on free food. Not that I hate them for who they are or anything, I mean shit happens, but why in the middle of a park designed for people to relax, not be reminded of the shittiness of life.

I'm sure it'll create a lot of drama and whatnot, but I think it'll also die fairly quickly once it's challenged because of constitutional stuff and such.

I know up here, we have a lot of problems with homeless, but it's in the downtown areas, not parks and such. So I doubt anything like that will happen anytime soon, if ever here.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Hmm, I've heard of this happening in a California city earlier (I wanna say LA, but I'm not positive), and the reasoning was similiar to this city's (we don't want a buncha bums in a "good area", but I think it was also for health reasons, cause the food may not be sanitary or something).

This is kind of hard to decide on. I can see why the city is doing it, similiar to what Qube just said, but at the same time, I can also see why those people want to help the homeless out.

In my city, homeless people can eat for free at certain places (heck, I used to eat there when I was younger, but at the time I didn't know why they were giving out free food, just that it didn't taste too bad), although it does close down at certain times of year (usually cause they run out of money).

I think they should do something similiar, get private organizations to help feed these people in a secure building, where they can also get help to try and get off the streets (yeah, you'll probably say "they're just lazy, that's why they're homeless", but some of them are there cause they got laid off, and can't find another job. And without an address, it's hard for them to keep the job, cause they have no permanent place to live, so it's a vicious cycle that they'd have to work really hard on to get out of).

I was speaking idiomatically.

The problem with combatting poverty, vagrancy and all of the resulting issues boils down to a simple sociological principle known as "NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)."

Yeah, a lot of people donate money to charities, but that really doesn't mean jackshit. If they really wanted to help these people instead of trying to corral them into shelters and such, they would open up their businesses, or donate their own effort (which is often worth more than your money) to helping these people become self-sufficient again.

Personally, I don't see why vagrancy is such a big legal issue. So, they don't live in a concrete box like the rest of us do. We pay taxes so that we have public facilities, for all citizens to use. Not all of us pay the same amount, does that mean we should start providing preferential services to those who pay more? (I'm not saying that doesn't happen, now, but it's not based on anything written in law)

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I have no idea about the legality of this issue. Constitutional law is voodoo and basically I couldn't care less about precedent and I have no idea what the founding fathers wanted. I do think it's immoral. But, that doesn't matter so much.

I do think laws like this create long-term problems. You really can't just hide problems in the long term. You may get the homeless off of the street until the time of the homeless intifadah comes. Which, would probably be purse snatching and violence. If we have a problem we need to fix it and while it may make people feel better to keep the dirty people away it's not going to fix societal problems. I seriously think America has a problem with thinking "I worked hard to earn my money so why don't they do the same". In most cases that's not true... and the amount of money you have doesn't have equal correlation to how hard you work, or even how well you planned your life. I think laws like this do highlight some really deep societal problems when you take away people's access to resources and then scorn them when they use unnaccepted means to gain access to resources.

It also seems utterly unenforcable. I don't know the wording of the ordinance but most homeless men I've talked to tell me stories of how they're trying to get home. I have no idea if these stories are true but some are quite fun. So, are you homeless if your house isn't within the Las Vegas area? Well, that would mean most tourists. They'd have to come up with a narrow definition since I don't think the whole "gut feeling" would work out in court.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by gren

I do think laws like this create long-term problems. You really can't just hide problems in the long term. You may get the homeless off of the street until the time of the homeless intifadah comes. Which, would probably be purse snatching and violence. If we have a problem we need to fix it and while it may make people feel better to keep the dirty people away it's not going to fix societal problems. I seriously think America has a problem with thinking "I worked hard to earn my money so why don't they do the same". In most cases that's not true... and the amount of money you have doesn't have equal correlation to how hard you work, or even how well you planned your life. I think laws like this do highlight some really deep societal problems when you take away people's access to resources and then scorn them when they use unnaccepted means to gain access to resources.

I'm all for the belief of giving people jobs rather than giving them handouts--or if given handout let it be temporary to motivate them to get a job--but with outsourcing and money-grubbing corporate bigwigs replacing human labor with technology, jobs may be harder to find. I'm all for technology, but we seriously need to figure out an alternative if this trend continues.

It's already hard enough for the homeless to survive with the increased difficulty in receiving a job. Most companies--if not all--require that a person gives a permanent address and many bosses are afraid of homeless people stealing. I can understand about not wanting them to be fed at the park, but they need to hold a designated area to feed the homeless.

How ya doing, buddy?

This law is absolute BS and completely unconstitutional. This won't even make it past the first judge it's put in front of. Heck, I have half a mind to go there and start handing out food to the homeless just out of pure protest. It would be easy to get away with, especially since I know some people who could make such a charge disappear if I were arrested . . . What a joke!

I thought this was the United States of America?

Jam it back in, in the dark.