Whether they should or shouldn’t, this has nothing to do with individuals sharing food with other individuals.
Oh I get that. I think it’s a laudable activity - that a church or any other organization to take it upon themselves to provide food for those in need.
When they create a gathering of folks, do you think they should provide bathrooms? A lot of folks gathering for meals are going to produce human waste.
Should the people providing the food be regulated like other food service providers - following standards and protocols of food safety, handling, preparation, etc?
Should the people providing the food respect the neighborhood and it’s zoning? Certain neighborhoods are zoned residential - no other businesses will be able to operate storefronts, etc. Should this group be able to do so?
I’m sure the church can still provide food to the homeless - they just have to follow the rules, no? That’s the whole point of allowing zoning, and mandating health and safety standards. I personally think the use of zoning and standards enforcement should be much more narrowly tailored, but that’s not the situation we are faced with.
I’m actually looking for the specific ordinance in question but I can’t seem to find it. Does anyone have a link?
Keeping the homeless away from tourists is bad because…why? For places that rely on tourist revenues, it seems prudent to take steps to attract tourists. If not for them, the city either has to cut services or raise taxes.
They could be like SF, where every other street corner smells like urine and escalators on mass transit routinely have to be closed due to build up of human solid waste. Come visit our bustling metropolis!
Holy crap that’s the dumbest display of reasoning I’ve ever seen.
Edit: the link obviously, not you.
It’s disgusting. It wasn’t too long ago “they” were pushing private charity as THE viable alternative to “big bugmint” and “thousand points of light” bullshit, and now they outlaw that too. Fvck 'em.
These might all be decent questions, but I don’t think they have anything to do with the Fort Lauderdale mayor’s attempt to make it illegal to feed the homeless because he wants the homeless to leave.
Exactly. I bet he calls himself a “christian” too. They usually do :rolleyes:
The stated goal is to impact the homeless problem in the city, however the law is ostensibly to satisfy other goals similar to what I listed. Those would likely be the defense of such ordinances if they were challenged. Avoiding the issue doesn’t help address them if the law is to be challenged.
Or are we just complaining that if something is illegal it should be okay if we like the result?
If you have to ask, you won’t understand the answer. Hint. Chad Hanging and his rock band, The Recounters. But you’re probably not into music. :rolleyes:
So, the city, being compassionate and such, will set up a shelter and feed the unfortunate? Or are they simply hoping to make it another city’s problem? We’re talking about sharing food in a public park, some of us call that a picnic, but I guess those are illegal now too.
How disgusting a defense. Let’s kick out the homeless because they cost us money. We’d better deprive the homeless of rights rather than let the tourists feel slightly bad. The tourists have money, so their right to not be slightly offended is more important than that of the homeless person to actually get some food.
And San Fransisco isn’t hurting for tourist money, you disgusting greedy shit.
Seriously? The whole reason we make things illegal is because we don’t like the results. If we like the results, then of course it shouldn’t be illegal.
My least favorite flavor of toothpaste.
Which is more important, getting money from tourists or feeding homeless people?
I’m talking about zoning in general. If zoning is allowed, then it can be used by those in power to zone out things they wish. It sounds like you’re against zoning. I’m guessing you’re not though, except when it impacts things you like.
You have the calculus wrong. No one is depriving the homeless of any right. The discussion is focused on those providing the food, not those receiving it. So do you believe that groups should be allowed to serve food in a manner that violates health and safety standards, doesn’t follow food handling and preparation standards, etc.?
And it’s naive to think that tourist money isn’t important to a city. Any city in America will value those who can pay taxes and fund the operations of a city over those that are a drain on one. This isn’t to say that a city doesn’t have an obligation towards its homeless population - they do. How they satisfy that obligation is debatable.
I never said San Francisco is hurting for tourist money. The city does quite well. It’s also dirty as shit and smells like piss in many parts of downtown.
Well now, lets be fair. Mayors may whip out that bible and twist the words better than a 70s-era kidnapping ransom note, but governors are held to a Higher standard.
Good Ole Jeb only whips it out out for women on life-support.
If you are homeless in Ft Lauderdale, your best bet is to drop into a persistent vegetative state and hope that other homeless don’t eat you.
They could collect revenue by having those things that dispense a handful of feed like at a petting zoo, and they would only use special tokens sold or given out by the tourist bureau. Solves two problems with one stone.
:dubious:
I think I’ll claim this was your idea.
It’s too bad the homeless don’t vote. If they did, the mayor would probably be down there serving the food along with Abbott.
Immediately ?
Somehow, other venues selling food don’t seem to have to worry about their patrons mass defecating.
Providing they adhere to the standards required of street food vendors, there’s probably no problem.
Anchovies. I love em.