Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Feed the Homeless, Go To Jail; In Las Vegas
Topic Started: Jul 28 2006, 07:34 AM (2,003 Views)
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
When I finally *do* answer the question you seem incapable of answering, you'll discover that I am far from being simple minded.


I look forward to you telling me what "liberalism" is and what my principles are. That will be amusing for me and perhaps others on this board. Lay it on me, Larry. Show me that I'm mentally ill. Tick tock, Larry. Every moment you wait, I could be further weakening our country and siding with the terrorists.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Jacob Jingoism Smith
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Here is the thing several people here seem to hate so much and would wish to eliminate. Unless of course they prefer the straw man approach of first defining it their own way and then knocking it down:

"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.
Broadly speaking, modern liberalism places the rights of the individual above the needs of the group. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected. [2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[3].
Modern liberalism usually advocates a limited degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including the dole for the poor, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.
Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum.
A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties."

From Wiki.
Jingoism

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
John Jacob Jingoism Smith
Jul 30 2006, 11:34 AM
Here is the thing several people here seem to hate so much and would wish to eliminate. Unless of course they prefer the straw man approach of first defining it their own way and then knocking it down:

"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.
Broadly speaking, modern liberalism places the rights of the individual above the needs of the group. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected. [2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[3].
Modern liberalism usually advocates a limited degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including the dole for the poor, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.
Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum.
A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties."

From Wiki.

Bloody hell, that's absolutely barbaric. Quick, I need to cancel my subscription. Medical care for the sick! Universal education! No divine rights for Prince Charles!

What do you get when you scratch a liberal, again?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I am intrigued by the conservative response in this thread.

For years now, I have heard the conservatives argue that it is better for private charity to provide for the poor rather than the government.

Fair enough.

This appears to be what is happening in Las Vegas.

And yet, Las Vegas wants to keep these private charities from feeding the poor in a public park and the conservatives feel this is acceptable if not a good thing.

Fair enough again.

So tell me, dear conservatives, what you propose be done in Las Vegas.

Don't just criticize what those who are trying to help are doing. Propose your own solution.

What do you propose be done here -- or do you propose nothing need be done at all?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 10:15 AM
I am intrigued by the conservative response in this thread.

For years now, I have heard the conservatives argue that it is better for private charity to provide for the poor rather than the government.

Fair enough.

This appears to be what is happening in Las Vegas.

And yet, Las Vegas wants to keep these private charities from feeding the poor in a public park and the conservatives feel this is acceptable if not a good thing.

Fair enough again.

So tell me, dear conservatives, what you propose be done in Las Vegas.

Don't just criticize what those who are trying to help are doing. Propose your own solution.

What do you propose be done here -- or do you propose nothing need be done at all?

You need to get new glasses.

I thought IT's solution was just fine - feed 'em on private property, with whatever permits are deemed necessary.

The Salvation Army does it all the time, all over the place. It's not a problem.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 09:26 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 10:15 AM
I am intrigued by the conservative response in this thread.

For years now, I have heard the conservatives argue that it is better for private charity to provide for the poor rather than the government. 

Fair enough. 

This appears to be what is happening in Las Vegas.

And yet, Las Vegas wants to keep these private charities from feeding the poor in a public park and the conservatives feel this is acceptable if not a good thing.

Fair enough again.

So tell me, dear conservatives, what you propose be done in Las Vegas.

Don't just criticize what those who are trying to help are doing.  Propose your own solution.

What do you propose be done here -- or do you propose nothing need be done at all?

You need to get new glasses.

I thought IT's solution was just fine - feed 'em on private property, with whatever permits are deemed necessary.

The Salvation Army does it all the time, all over the place. It's not a problem.

How to get the private property is the question.

One of the problems when you turn this over to the private sector alone is the lack of money. Land is expensive, even in Vegas.

If you are going to suggest it be limited solely to private charities that have enough cash like the the Salvation Army, then you are saying we only use really large charities with large contributor bases.

Is this then a refinement of the conservative position? That not only should helping the poor be limited to the private sector, but also only to that portion of the private sector that has enough money to buy land and build buildings?

(As an aside, we have had a couple of situations here in Orange County CA where a church or church group did have a facility and were using it, and the people who lived in the area went to the city and demanded they be stopped. I doubt these are the only examples of this in the nation).
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 09:36 AM
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 09:26 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 10:15 AM
I am intrigued by the conservative response in this thread.

For years now, I have heard the conservatives argue that it is better for private charity to provide for the poor rather than the government. 

Fair enough. 

This appears to be what is happening in Las Vegas.

And yet, Las Vegas wants to keep these private charities from feeding the poor in a public park and the conservatives feel this is acceptable if not a good thing.

Fair enough again.

So tell me, dear conservatives, what you propose be done in Las Vegas.

Don't just criticize what those who are trying to help are doing.  Propose your own solution.

What do you propose be done here -- or do you propose nothing need be done at all?

You need to get new glasses.

I thought IT's solution was just fine - feed 'em on private property, with whatever permits are deemed necessary.

The Salvation Army does it all the time, all over the place. It's not a problem.

How to get the private property is the question.

One of the problems when you turn this over to the private sector alone is the lack of money. Land is expensive, even in Vegas.

If you are going to suggest it be limited solely to private charities that have enough cash like the the Salvation Army, then you are saying we only use really large charities with large contributor bases.

Is this then a refinement of the conservative position? That not only should helping the poor be limited to the private sector, but also only to that portion of the private sector that has enough money to buy land and build buildings?

(As an aside, we have had a couple of situations here in Orange County CA where a church or church group did have a facility and were using it, and the people who lived in the area went to the city and demanded they be stopped. I doubt these are the only examples of this in the nation).

Rick: If she wants to feed them in her kitchen or dining room, then she is welcome to do so. It seems so simple: advertise and get word of mouth going on the street that she's offering baloney sandwiches at her house everyday. They are all her "friends" and she is "inviting them to lunch".

I think that the churches should not be stopped from this sort of action, and I think that if OC did, it does not respect the zoning that allows for churches to minister on land thus zoned.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jul 30 2006, 12:38 PM
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 09:36 AM
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 09:26 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 10:15 AM
I am intrigued by the conservative response in this thread.

For years now, I have heard the conservatives argue that it is better for private charity to provide for the poor rather than the government. 

Fair enough. 

This appears to be what is happening in Las Vegas.

And yet, Las Vegas wants to keep these private charities from feeding the poor in a public park and the conservatives feel this is acceptable if not a good thing.

Fair enough again.

So tell me, dear conservatives, what you propose be done in Las Vegas.

Don't just criticize what those who are trying to help are doing.  Propose your own solution.

What do you propose be done here -- or do you propose nothing need be done at all?

You need to get new glasses.

I thought IT's solution was just fine - feed 'em on private property, with whatever permits are deemed necessary.

The Salvation Army does it all the time, all over the place. It's not a problem.

How to get the private property is the question.

One of the problems when you turn this over to the private sector alone is the lack of money. Land is expensive, even in Vegas.

If you are going to suggest it be limited solely to private charities that have enough cash like the the Salvation Army, then you are saying we only use really large charities with large contributor bases.

Is this then a refinement of the conservative position? That not only should helping the poor be limited to the private sector, but also only to that portion of the private sector that has enough money to buy land and build buildings?

(As an aside, we have had a couple of situations here in Orange County CA where a church or church group did have a facility and were using it, and the people who lived in the area went to the city and demanded they be stopped. I doubt these are the only examples of this in the nation).

Rick: If she wants to feed them in her kitchen or dining room, then she is welcome to do so. It seems so simple: advertise and get word of mouth going on the street that she's offering baloney sandwiches at her house everyday. They are all her "friends" and she is "inviting them to lunch".

I think that the churches should not be stopped from this sort of action, and I think that if OC did, it does not respect the zoning that allows for churches to minister on land thus zoned.

And if 100 or 200 or 300 of her "friends" show up at her house each day, what do you think the reaction of her neighbors would be and then of the city after the complaints come in?

And, of course, you have given it in your comment about Orange County -- she will be found in violation of the zoning laws.

So, I ask you conservatives again -- what is a viable option? Not a theoretical option, but a practical viable one. There are people who need food -- not people who need abstract concepts. They are hungry and need food -- and you do not like the idea of the government doing it.

You want the private sector to provide the charity. But then the private sector gets hamstrung with laws like the one in Vegas about not using the parks or by zoning laws. Or they are hamstrung by the lack of money to find pay for a place to do this -- unless we limit charity to large, well financed charities.

So please -- give me a viable, practical solution to how you will feed those who need to be fed.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I already said that if I owned a vacant lot in Vegas I would consider allowing the folks to set up a food distribution location on the premises.

There *must* be some liberal in Las Vegas who would also be so generous as to do that.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 12:53 PM


So, I ask you conservatives again -- what is a viable option?  Not a theoretical option, but a practical viable one.  There are people who need food -- not people who need abstract concepts.  They are hungry and need food -- and you do not like the idea of the government doing it.

You want the private sector to provide the charity.  But then the private sector gets hamstrung with laws like the one in Vegas about not using the parks or by zoning laws.  Or they are hamstrung by the lack of money to find pay for a place to do this -- unless we limit charity to large, well financed charities.

So please -- give me a viable, practical solution to how you will feed those who need to be fed.

Rick: Rather than finger pointing, why don't you do something about it?

Get a group of concerned citizens to buy a piece of commercial property in Las Vegas, hire a battery of lawyers to secure the necessary zoning and food distribution permits, and start handing out balony sandwiches.

That is they way these things are best done, and I doubt any "conservatives" here would have any problem with that approach.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
ivorythumper
Jul 30 2006, 01:38 PM
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 09:36 AM
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 09:26 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 10:15 AM
I am intrigued by the conservative response in this thread.

For years now, I have heard the conservatives argue that it is better for private charity to provide for the poor rather than the government. 

Fair enough. 

This appears to be what is happening in Las Vegas.

And yet, Las Vegas wants to keep these private charities from feeding the poor in a public park and the conservatives feel this is acceptable if not a good thing.

Fair enough again.

So tell me, dear conservatives, what you propose be done in Las Vegas.

Don't just criticize what those who are trying to help are doing.  Propose your own solution.

What do you propose be done here -- or do you propose nothing need be done at all?

You need to get new glasses.

I thought IT's solution was just fine - feed 'em on private property, with whatever permits are deemed necessary.

The Salvation Army does it all the time, all over the place. It's not a problem.

How to get the private property is the question.

One of the problems when you turn this over to the private sector alone is the lack of money. Land is expensive, even in Vegas.

If you are going to suggest it be limited solely to private charities that have enough cash like the the Salvation Army, then you are saying we only use really large charities with large contributor bases.

Is this then a refinement of the conservative position? That not only should helping the poor be limited to the private sector, but also only to that portion of the private sector that has enough money to buy land and build buildings?

(As an aside, we have had a couple of situations here in Orange County CA where a church or church group did have a facility and were using it, and the people who lived in the area went to the city and demanded they be stopped. I doubt these are the only examples of this in the nation).

Rick: If she wants to feed them in her kitchen or dining room, then she is welcome to do so. It seems so simple: advertise and get word of mouth going on the street that she's offering baloney sandwiches at her house everyday. They are all her "friends" and she is "inviting them to lunch".

I think that the churches should not be stopped from this sort of action, and I think that if OC did, it does not respect the zoning that allows for churches to minister on land thus zoned.

That approach was tried in Houston, mostly with tortillas and beans. IIRC, it just got to the point that feeding time was creating a traffic jam in a residential neighborhood, plus a litter problem.

The lady did not have the necessary city permits, and was shut down.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 02:05 PM

That approach was tried in Houston, mostly with tortillas and beans. IIRC, it just got to the point that feeding time was creating a traffic jam in a residential neighborhood, plus a litter problem.

The lady did not have the necessary city permits, and was shut down.

OK, so get a commercial lot, get it zoned, get the permits, and do it.

There is a great ecumenical initiative in Mesa, AZ called Paz de Cristo that got some space in the warehouse district and serves hundreds of meals 365 days a year. No neighbor problems, and bringing the services to where the indigents already are.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
ivorythumper
Jul 30 2006, 03:28 PM
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 02:05 PM

That approach was tried in Houston, mostly with tortillas and beans. IIRC, it just got to the point that feeding time was creating a traffic jam in a residential neighborhood, plus a litter problem.

The lady did not have the necessary city permits, and was shut down.

OK, so get a commercial lot, get it zoned, get the permits, and do it.

There is a great ecumenical initiative in Mesa, AZ called Paz de Cristo that got some space in the warehouse district and serves hundreds of meals 365 days a year. No neighbor problems, and bringing the services to where the indigents already are.

Like I said, I think that's the way to go.

I also don't think it has to be nearly as expensive an undertaking as Rick seems to think it would be...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 02:34 PM

I also don't think it has to be nearly as expensive an undertaking as Rick seems to think it would be...

I dunno, those salaries for the Board of Directors really add up.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jul 30 2006, 02:28 PM
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 02:05 PM

That approach was tried in Houston, mostly with tortillas and beans. IIRC, it just got to the point that feeding time was creating a traffic jam in a residential neighborhood, plus a litter problem.

The lady did not have the necessary city permits, and was shut down.

OK, so get a commercial lot, get it zoned, get the permits, and do it.

There is a great ecumenical initiative in Mesa, AZ called Paz de Cristo that got some space in the warehouse district and serves hundreds of meals 365 days a year. No neighbor problems, and bringing the services to where the indigents already are.

So as I said. Your solution is that the poor should only be fed by charities with enough money to get space, permits, etc.

Now, let me ask why they cannot use a public park?

The park is there for the use of the general public. Are those who are hungry not members of the public? Or are they not good enough members of the public?

Is there a reason that little leagues are more worthy of the use of a public park? Or mothers with children are more worthy? Or soccer leagues?

It is not unusual for people to eat in public parks. Is it OK for some members of the public to eat in public parks but not other members?

If one reads the original article, the answer is given that they scare people. Why is that? Were they doing anything criminal? Or was it just that the other people felt uncomfortable? If that is all it was -- if this was all in the minds of the others who wanted to use the park -- the problem is not those who are hungry. It is those who fantasize bad things about those who are hungry.

The other reason in the article was that if they were there, others could not use the park. Well, if youth sports take over the park, others cannot use it. If mothers will children have play groups that use the playground, then those who might want to use the playground equipment might find they are denied the use of it. Such first come first served use of public parks are always part of the nature of such parks.

I recall working for a city planning department where I handled code enfocrement. There was a public park near a standard middle class neighborhood. About six blocks away was a barrio. On Sundays, those who lived in the barrio walked to the park and spent most of the day there. They had BBQ's, soccer games, sat around and talked, etc.

A group from the middle class neighborhood asked for a meeting and came in complaining to me that "those people" (literally the words they used) were taking over "our" (again what they said) park. And they wanted to know what I was going to do about it.

I told them that "those people" were members of the public just like they were and had as much right to use the facilities of the city as they did. Then I started to get all the code phrases aimed at me assuming I understood, because after all I am white and so I supposedly understand and sympathize about the problem, even if I couldn't say so because I worked for the city. I swear to God I wanted to kick the bigots out of City Hall and I wish I could have -- but they were members of the public and even bigots had the right to my time! <g>

The problem in Las Vegas really comes down to a covert acknowledgement that there are some members of the public who are more worthy of using public facilities than others -- and the city does not want "those people" using the public park, even though they too are members of the public.

There is no legitimate reason to deny these people from using the park to feed the hungry except for the fact the hungry are "those people."

It is nimbyism pure and simple.

And it is wrong.


(BTW, why don't those who think this park should be their's and not open the the general public, go and find some land of their own, buy it and make their own private park? If this is a soilutiuon for feeding the hungy, then it is also a solution for providing playgrounds for those with money)
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well...this sort of thing is happening in this town (Shrewsbury) now as well. My dad told me on the way home from Manchester that the town had banned beggars from...well..begging. That includes setting up blankets with dogs sitting by them and playing penny whistles. Good.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
LWpianistin
Jul 30 2006, 07:09 PM
Well...this sort of thing is happening in this town (Shrewsbury) now as well. My dad told me on the way home from Manchester that the town had banned beggars from...well..begging. That includes setting up blankets with dogs sitting by them and playing penny whistles. Good.

In 1980's Britain, Margaret Thatcher closed down most of the State-run mental hospitals, and said that from then on the former patients would be receiving 'care in the community'. Coincidentally enough, the number of homeless people increased out of all proportion within a year or so of that policy being introduced, and has never really gone down again.

I've applied my Sherlock Holmes-like intellect to one difficult conundrum today already, so maybe someone else can take over. Is there anybody here with a laser-like intellect who feels up to the challenge?

OK, here goes.....Where did all the British homeless people come from? Was it:

a) Bloody immigrants, sponging off the state, stealing our cardboard boxes, send 'em back where they came from!

b) Lazy good-for-nothing vermin, most of 'em earn 6-figure salaries begging, they don't wanna work, they go to St Moritz at weekends!

c) Other.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I say C.

There seem to be a lot of "local" other-natinality homeless people around Shrewsbury, but there are still a lot of Brits. Most of them are known (and obvious) wine-o's. Rather sad, but I don't give them money if I know they're a wine-o.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Soak
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
yeah, I'm skipping a number of pages. Let's put it in perspective. The tourist element is what keeps Nevada flush (that and silver mining and 85% of the state being federal land). Homeless tend to drag down the profits 'cause they're an eyesore. You won't find any of the people living there all that sympathetic if given the choice between property and sales tax and the LCD lying about. The state has applied a law that benefits the industry that keeps the state going without civilian contribution.

The chaff will have to move elsewhere. Might I suggest Phoenix.
Mister Soak
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 11:15 AM
I am intrigued by the conservative response in this thread.

For years now, I have heard the conservatives argue that it is better for private charity to provide for the poor rather than the government.

Fair enough.

This appears to be what is happening in Las Vegas.

And yet, Las Vegas wants to keep these private charities from feeding the poor in a public park and the conservatives feel this is acceptable if not a good thing.

Fair enough again.

So tell me, dear conservatives, what you propose be done in Las Vegas.

Don't just criticize what those who are trying to help are doing. Propose your own solution.

What do you propose be done here -- or do you propose nothing need be done at all?

Uh, Rick ....

Oscar Goodman (mayor of Las Vegas and the proponent of this law) is a Democrat.

It just goes to show that insensitivity and heartlessness are not limited to the Republican Party.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Not only Vegas that has passed similar ordinance. So too has Tampa, FL

http://www.wftv.com/news/9571421/detail.html

Heard about the Tampa initiative last week on Canadian Radio News. Made perfect sense to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 02:02 PM
I recall working for a city planning department where I handled code enfocrement.

The problem with any government system is when a liberal, and an idiot to boot, gets involved.

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
altho i don't agree with prohibition in principal, i can see why a municipality might want to 'control' it's homeless population... or not want it to allow it to concentrate in a certain locale, and this law might be an end to a necessary means.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jul 30 2006, 03:02 PM
ivorythumper
Jul 30 2006, 02:28 PM
Jolly
Jul 30 2006, 02:05 PM

That approach was tried in Houston, mostly with tortillas and beans. IIRC, it just got to the point that feeding time was creating a traffic jam in a residential neighborhood, plus a litter problem.

The lady did not have the necessary city permits, and was shut down.

OK, so get a commercial lot, get it zoned, get the permits, and do it.

There is a great ecumenical initiative in Mesa, AZ called Paz de Cristo that got some space in the warehouse district and serves hundreds of meals 365 days a year. No neighbor problems, and bringing the services to where the indigents already are.

So as I said. Your solution is that the poor should only be fed by charities with enough money to get space, permits, etc.

Now, let me ask why they cannot use a public park?

The park is there for the use of the general public. Are those who are hungry not members of the public? Or are they not good enough members of the public?

Rick: By all accounts, she is "setting up shop" to feed the homeless. If she were discretely walking around with balony sandwiches, then this would never have hit the radar or public concern.

It is a private initiative -- why should we allow private initiatives on the public parks for free? Public parks are generally intended for personal and occassional group functions. Organized groups that want to regularly use the park typically pay for that. For instance, the local softball and soccer leagues teams pay a users fee for reserving and maintaining the fields -- these are also private initiatives, and they have to obey the park regulations.

It does not seem particularly cold hearted of the city to keep someone from using public space to set up a business or ministry or any private initiative on a daily basis. Her food distribution is a private initiative which is best handled on private property.

It has nothing per se to do with nimbyism. But, go ahead and open your backyard to such a program. I will fully support your rights to do so.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Regardless of whether or not this would hold up in a higher court, I still don't see how this law actually confronts the issue at hand. This will do nothing to curb the number of homeless in Las Vegas, and I'd be very surprised if it's effective in thinning out their population in the parks. Nor does it help the homeless in any way.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply