Am not defending this law at all, but the thinking behind it is twofold:
you might be handing out tainted or expired food
the bigger issue: you are creating a “nuisance” on the property where you’re doing it, as large groups of homeless people gather there. Some would say it’s a safety concern, for example handing out free food at the corner of a primary school.
Again, I’m not agreeing with either point, but these are arguments I have heard from people who back such laws.
To the second point though, I’ve seen it firsthand. Salt Lake City tried to do a good thing by making the public library a homeless-friendly zone by handing out free food and allowing access to WiFi. This caused a large amount of homeless to hang out there all the time, and some of them would harass and attack non-homeless patrons of the library to the point that pretty much all of them stopped coming to the library entirely, and the area became a no-go zone.
The real issue is that a large amount of homeless people have severe mental illnesses (since public sanitariums all closed in the 70s). So where there are big congregations of homeless, there will inevitably be harassment and possible violence. Cities don’t want people feeding the homeless at any old public building to avoid these situations, hence the laws, which allow you to do it only at certain places the city allows.
“Poisoned or tainted food” is just a sensationalist term for “not FDA approved” or “not handled by a certified food professional”. It’s kinda over the top in this regard but remember when people put borax in their milk to make it taste better or lime and plaster into bread to stretch the flour? It was unregulated food. Just like you can’t open an unregistered and unlicensed restaurant without certfied cooks, you can’t just hand out foods without someone knowing (i.e. licensed) how the food is supposed to be handled.
The real issue is that too many Americans have bought into the bootstrap theory and couldn’t give a shit about their neighbours who don’t have a place to live or food to eat.
Take care of those 2 things first and there won’t be an issue of people hanging out where it’s warm/cool and food is being supplied.
A solution requires more than just providing food and shelter. We have a class of people who are marginally mentally ill or barely literate. They do not function well enough to hold down a job or fill out a welfare form, but they function too well to require that they be locked up. These people need a semi-monitored place with enough oversight to keep them safe. The street can’t do that, but they have no other place to go.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it’s not just an America problem. Have you been to Paris lately and seen the homelessness situation there, especially on the Metro?
Or in Oslo, where homeless Roma people attack people in broad daylight at Nationalteatret station and steal their luggage?
It’s a big problem everywhere, and attitudes like the type you describe aren’t relegated solely to Americans.
I’d love to mate, but I honestly don’t know how. One thing I have to come to realise is that simply throwing money at the problem doesn’t work. Norway, London, NYC, and California both spends billions each year on homelessness and the problem is only getting worse every year in all those places.
Maybe a good place to start would be opening up free sanitariums again where homeless people with mental issues could be housed, as sadly the streets have become the new dumping ground for people with severe mental illness.
Beyond that, am not sure, besides a total dismantling of capitalism.
Stop spending billions on a “war on drugs” and make sure people have houses and healthcare (including mental health) unconditionally with no ridiculous hoops or welfare traps 10 years before they become a street junkie.
Just because some places misused a bunch of money doing very stupid things with it doesn’t validate ignoring the solution.
It’s not nearly so trivial. Having lived in Norway for many years, a country which does have unconditional free healthcare (including mental health), and free access to housing, they still have a large homeless population and plenty of street crime.
The sanitoriums were closed for good reason. Bad as homelessness is, it is better than the abuse of sanitoriums.
Not a sanitorium, but i know someone who was in an orphanage, they beat kids with a metal chimney brush if they put their head on the pillow when they slept. This earned them lots of awards for how nice all the kids beds were. Sanitoriums were reportable just as bad, but I don’t have such close accounts.
The sanatoriums were horrendous and closed by both Canadian and American gov’ts in the late 60’s - early 70’s for good reason. The problem was the gov’ts didn’t put programs in place to help those people live outside the walls … essentially the same thing they do with prisoners now.
Guaranteed incomes, stable housing and support networks would clear up many of the “issues”, but too many whine about their tax dollars being spent on people in need.
No one would be happier than me with this solution, but it will never realistically happen in our lifetimes. And even if it somehow came to happen eventually, given the entrenchment of current elites, it would only happen with an immense cost in human lives and violence, and a massive drop in living standards in the immediate aftermath before some utopia is created.
Current day -> neo Soviet revolution -> Mad Max -> the last of us? -> ??? -> Bernie Sanders Utopia
All those things are basically guaranteed anyway thanks to climate change. I just hope the survivors aren’t stupid enough to try to go back to how things are now.
Someone please explain to me how giving food to another person is illegal. This is by far the most dystopian thing I’ve ever read, fiction included.
Am not defending this law at all, but the thinking behind it is twofold:
Again, I’m not agreeing with either point, but these are arguments I have heard from people who back such laws.
To the second point though, I’ve seen it firsthand. Salt Lake City tried to do a good thing by making the public library a homeless-friendly zone by handing out free food and allowing access to WiFi. This caused a large amount of homeless to hang out there all the time, and some of them would harass and attack non-homeless patrons of the library to the point that pretty much all of them stopped coming to the library entirely, and the area became a no-go zone.
The real issue is that a large amount of homeless people have severe mental illnesses (since public sanitariums all closed in the 70s). So where there are big congregations of homeless, there will inevitably be harassment and possible violence. Cities don’t want people feeding the homeless at any old public building to avoid these situations, hence the laws, which allow you to do it only at certain places the city allows.
To the first point, handing out tainted or expired food should be illegal, not any kind of food. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“Poisoned or tainted food” is just a sensationalist term for “not FDA approved” or “not handled by a certified food professional”. It’s kinda over the top in this regard but remember when people put borax in their milk to make it taste better or lime and plaster into bread to stretch the flour? It was unregulated food. Just like you can’t open an unregistered and unlicensed restaurant without certfied cooks, you can’t just hand out foods without someone knowing (i.e. licensed) how the food is supposed to be handled.
I’ve got some news for you…
@trias10 @Peruvian_Skies
The real issue is that too many Americans have bought into the bootstrap theory and couldn’t give a shit about their neighbours who don’t have a place to live or food to eat.
Take care of those 2 things first and there won’t be an issue of people hanging out where it’s warm/cool and food is being supplied.
A solution requires more than just providing food and shelter. We have a class of people who are marginally mentally ill or barely literate. They do not function well enough to hold down a job or fill out a welfare form, but they function too well to require that they be locked up. These people need a semi-monitored place with enough oversight to keep them safe. The street can’t do that, but they have no other place to go.
@tdgoodman
You’re right. But food and shelter is a good place to start lest we overwhelm the pearl clutchers with too many requests all at once.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it’s not just an America problem. Have you been to Paris lately and seen the homelessness situation there, especially on the Metro?
Or in Oslo, where homeless Roma people attack people in broad daylight at Nationalteatret station and steal their luggage?
It’s a big problem everywhere, and attitudes like the type you describe aren’t relegated solely to Americans.
@trias10
That’s fair. So let’s fix it worldwide then, starting with North America.
I’d love to mate, but I honestly don’t know how. One thing I have to come to realise is that simply throwing money at the problem doesn’t work. Norway, London, NYC, and California both spends billions each year on homelessness and the problem is only getting worse every year in all those places.
Maybe a good place to start would be opening up free sanitariums again where homeless people with mental issues could be housed, as sadly the streets have become the new dumping ground for people with severe mental illness.
Beyond that, am not sure, besides a total dismantling of capitalism.
The answer is trivial.
Stop spending billions on a “war on drugs” and make sure people have houses and healthcare (including mental health) unconditionally with no ridiculous hoops or welfare traps 10 years before they become a street junkie.
Just because some places misused a bunch of money doing very stupid things with it doesn’t validate ignoring the solution.
It’s not nearly so trivial. Having lived in Norway for many years, a country which does have unconditional free healthcare (including mental health), and free access to housing, they still have a large homeless population and plenty of street crime.
Norway has much much lower homeless proportion than more neoliberal countries. It is a prime example of this strategy working.
The sanitoriums were closed for good reason. Bad as homelessness is, it is better than the abuse of sanitoriums.
Not a sanitorium, but i know someone who was in an orphanage, they beat kids with a metal chimney brush if they put their head on the pillow when they slept. This earned them lots of awards for how nice all the kids beds were. Sanitoriums were reportable just as bad, but I don’t have such close accounts.
@bluGill @TheTango @Peruvian_Skies @trias10
The sanatoriums were horrendous and closed by both Canadian and American gov’ts in the late 60’s - early 70’s for good reason. The problem was the gov’ts didn’t put programs in place to help those people live outside the walls … essentially the same thing they do with prisoners now.
Guaranteed incomes, stable housing and support networks would clear up many of the “issues”, but too many whine about their tax dollars being spent on people in need.
You say that like it’s not the actual solution.
No one would be happier than me with this solution, but it will never realistically happen in our lifetimes. And even if it somehow came to happen eventually, given the entrenchment of current elites, it would only happen with an immense cost in human lives and violence, and a massive drop in living standards in the immediate aftermath before some utopia is created.
Current day -> neo Soviet revolution -> Mad Max -> the last of us? -> ??? -> Bernie Sanders Utopia
All those things are basically guaranteed anyway thanks to climate change. I just hope the survivors aren’t stupid enough to try to go back to how things are now.
… Go on.