http://www.wxii12.com/news/9550232/detail.html
Las Vegas recently passed an ordinance forbidding ordinary citizens from feeding homeless people. The rationale for that is that the homeless people would have to go to a licensed shelter for food and thus be forced to get help for their drug and mental problems. I'm not sure that the Big Government nanny approach can solve homelessness. Even if Las Vegas succeeds in getting every homeless person in that area to go through drug rehab, there is the matter of job training and creating the jobs themselves. Las Vegas's economy consists of gambling casinos, entertainment plazas, and hotels. It would be pretty difficult to pay the rent on a Poker Dealer salary.

So the question for debate is
Can Las Vegas limit the food distribution for the homeless people?[b]
[b]Can Cities force homeless people to get help for drug addiction and job training?

Some history is in order here, I think. Crime in Vegas has decreased substantially since the crackdown on loitering homeless. It isn't possible to outlaw loitering in public areas, the USSC has historically struck this down, so the police have been arresting homeless for jaywalking or other minor offenses that place them in jail for a night or so. Honestly, this practice has really cut down on crime and cleaned up the area drastically.

Las Vegas's economy is booming, BTW. All of those entertainers/coctail waitresses/bartender/dealers (who have rather high salaries, incidentally...even valets at large casinos make around six figures) need all of the basic services the rest of us do. Salespeople, exterminators, plumbers, tile layers, mechanics, ect....make a mint out there. This is the best place I've ever seen for finding good employment without any experience or degree whatsoever. Most of the homeless either have a substance abuse problem or gambling problem; very common for that area.

Public dollars pay for the upkeep of those parks so that the community can use them. If a person sets up shop giving away food and homeless people come from miles around to eat there and lay in the sun all day, the public will probably not feel as safe using them. And I'll guarantee they make a horrible mess to clean in discarded trash. So yes, I agree with this law. Sorry, folks...I wouldn't take my children to this sort of park. This inhibits my personal freedom, and every other parent's. Ever go to a park that was so trashed up and had so many seedy-looking vagrants you couldn't use it? That's public tax money.

Please spare me histrionic false-dichotomy accusations of "now people can't even sit down and have a picnic! In America!" There is clearly a difference between setting up shop with large cardboard boxes for a massive watermelon and snack giveaway than sitting down for a lunch. The police aren't going to monitor every person who hands another a sandwich, nor could they. They don't have the resources in Vegas, believe me they are busy with real crime.

To answer the second question, no...cities cannot force the homeless to get help. They can and should offer it (this is in everyone's best interest, public money well-spent), and they do. The city also provides soup kitchens where they can obtain a meal so they don't have to rely on food giveaways in public parks.

Can Las Vegas limit the food distribution for the homeless people?
Yes. The city's ability to do so is not, however, unlimited.

Can Cities force homeless people to get help for drug addiction and job training?
No, but they can use carrots and sticks to encourage the homeless to get help.

I'd like to raise an objection to the thread title. Las Vegas did not make it a crime to feed the homeless. Anybody living with the city limits is welcome to set a spot at their table, in their home, for as many homeless folks as they want. Likewise, restraunt owner's can feed as many homelss as they desire, in their restraunt. Here is what the new law does:

A battle is brewing over a new Las Vegas ordinance that bans providing food or meals to the indigent at city parks.

I'm curious as to what the basis of the ACLU's argument will be...

It should also be noted that this has no effect outside the city limits. Given that only about 1/2 of the population of the Las Vegas Valley live within the city limits of Las Vegas itself, there's still plenty of parks for the bums to stink up. Of course, few of said parks are within proximity to the homeless shelters, which are in downtown LV.

This is so very overdue.
Here in AZ we get far too many of these folks. Try to find a corner without someone standing there with a raggedy sign begging for money. Tempe is overrun with the teen version of these people. The public parks are gross with their waste.

Can Las Vegas limit the food distribution for the homeless people?
Yes. I am sure they are limited though, since they can never get these people to go elswhere.
Can Cities force homeless people to get help for drug addiction and job training?
No.

Yes.

We should. But, the ACLU via lawsuits during the Reagan era created the homeless problem in the first place when they sued to have people who were committed to state institutions released.

At this point, we should recognize that the ACLU led movement failed and re-institutionalize these people who can clearly not take of themselves. They'd live in structured environments, received food, housing, and medical care, and stop being such a problem to the rest of non mentally ill society.

Can Las Vegas limit the food distribution for the homeless people?

I think it is within their ability. The "mobile soup kitchens" are creating a public problem. It is the city's job to solve such problems.

Many homeless advocates are torn on the issue of whether or not to give money to panhandlers. Some consider it better advice to give them the business card of the local shelter so that they can find support, food, a warm place to sleep, and other social services (including job training, counseling, and mental health services).

One example

The difference here is that these people are actually handing out food--which most homeless advocates would applaud. Don't give money, give food. Advocates, however, agree that solving the homeless problem isn't as simple as giving the person food. The problem is not a lack of food or shelter--those are symptoms. Most homeless people need the other services that shelters provide much more than sustenance and shelter.

I think a better approach would be to license "food hander outers" so that those with a legitimate interest can help these people. Licensed dolers would need to refer people to shelters and refuse to help severely reoccurring recipients. I personally think it is a bad idea to pander to those that won't help themselves. Help is needed in a form other than a free meal every day.

Can Cities force homeless people to get help for drug addiction and job training?

Unfortunately, no. Mental problems and drug addiction are the two main causes of homelessness. We cannot force people to accept our help, but we should do as much as possible to encourage them to take the help that is offered by so many groups.

Here's the thing, Lordhelmet. I agree with you that de-institutionalization was a big part of the problem, but I have no idea where you got this idea that this was due to lawsuits from the ACLU in the 1980s. In fact, this was set in motion by the Community Mental Health Centers Act, signed by president John F. Kennedy in 1963. By 1983, the number of patients in state mental institutions had dropped from around 500,000 to 150,000. That many of these people ended up becoming homeless was an unintended consequence of a well-meaning, progressive legislation. In the early 60s, state mental facilities were notorious for their horrible conditions. At the time it was thought that with the development of new "wonder drugs," most of these people could re-enter society.

Reagan was slow to react to this problem, but did eventually sign some bills that addressed the homeless. In fact, the early years of Reagan's presidency added to the problem. In 1981, funding for subsidized housing was cut, and then cut again and again - from 32 billion in 1981 to 7.5 billion in 1988, while during the same period, the average cost of housing went up 50%.

Can Las Vegas limit the food distribution for the homeless people?

Well sure, the city can decide to limit food distribution for the homeless - from city-run shelters. They can decide to spend anywhere from zero to four-hundred gajillion dollars on feeding the homeless. What they cannot do is pass laws that affect what private citizens do by their own choice. Public parks are public. It is blatant discrimination to say that a citizen cannot hand out food to people in a public park, based on whether the person receiving the food is homeless. According to this rule, it would be fine for me to set up a picnic in a public park and hand out food to rich-looking men in clean suits, but not to scruffy looking people in dirty clothes.

This seems pretty obvious to me. If you want to address the problem of homelessness, that is great. But you just can't go about it by discriminatory laws like this.

Can Cities force homeless people to get help for drug addiction and job training?

Yes, they can. They can make it a condition of receiving food and shelter from a city-run shelter. In fact, we already do this on a federal level. Maybe some conservatives didn't get the memo, but AFDC was replaced by TANF during the Clinton administration. "Welfare" is now tied to job training and working.



As a parent I can certainly sympathize with your view. However, one of the little sticky things about living in the "land of the free" is that we don't get to make distinctions like this. "The community," you say, should be able to use the parks. Are you saying, then, that extremely poor people don't count as part of "the community?" How can we possibly stand for such discrimination in this country? How can we say that public parks have some sort of poverty threshold? How can we pass laws that limit who can be in a public park based on how they look or how much money is in their wallet? You want to address the problem of homelessness, that's great. But do it by working to solve the problem, not just getting them out of sight so you can enjoy a park. Rules like this just add to the mentality of "not my problem," or "out of sight, out of mind."

And it's disingenuous to say it limits your personal freedom. You still have the freedom to go to the park. Your fear of "seedy-looking vagrants" might keep you away, not any laws. And even with this rule, do you suppose that will keep homeless people away from public parks? It won't. You can't bar them from being in a public park, and whether they get food there or not, it will be a place where they can experience benches, grass, maybe trees. Where would you rather they go? Do they have no right to these public places? That seems to go far beyond this already discriminatory rule.

Can Las Vegas limit the food distribution for the homeless people?

My answer would have to be, No, because regardless of how hard they try, they can't really put a master griphold on the food distribution. They could make it a law, yes, but who's to say there won't be that one guy, who's walking down the alley, and drops a couple parcels of food here and there, unnoticed. So I guess it's a mixed answer. Yes they can place limits, but no, they won't be too effective.

Can Cities force homeless people to get help for drug addiction and job training?


On a more moral answer, I once again say no. I think that should be their own free will whether they will get a job or not, but as for the drug addiction, try them just as you would a non-homeless person if they had drug possession or was caught using drugs.

Can Las Vegas limit the food distribution for the homeless people?[b]
Unfortunately, yes. Even though I do not understand why they would want to.

[b]Can Cities force homeless people to get help for drug addiction and job training?
Mmm, well about the drug addiction...
I'm sure if one was arrested/charged with a drug offense they would do some mandatory Jail time. However, instead of incarceration they should do rehabilitation.

Job training -
I'm not sure if the State could pass some kind of law stating that if you earn less then so much a year
you are required to go through some job training classes.

The article title said it's a crime to feed the homeless, not to mention the fact that Las Vegas has now made it a crime to give food to those with no money and no home. Look.

Someone who gives food to someone with no money can be arrested yes arrested and charged yes charged and even fined yes fined for helping someone stay alive. Don't try change what's already on display. Who should one believe when it comes to laws passed in Las Vegas. The law books or an opinion from someone at America'sDebate?

That is indeed what the TITLE says, the actual content of the article states otherwise.

You have provided a quote that does not support your own argument, it supports Bikerdad's. It is a crime to feed the homeless in city parks. Period. It is not a crime to give them money, or feed them elsewhere.

Edited to add:

There is no law of which I am aware that requires a certain number of public parks must be maintained at taxpayer expense. If the parks are inaccessible due to practical restrictions (high crime, garbage, ect), the public will not use them, in which case it should not be required to fund them and might just bulldoze them over and sell the land to make a strip mall. Everyone loses. This is a question of balancing rights. I couldn't constitutionally restrict access to those public parks, nor would I wish to. I wouldn't wish to restrict access to libraries or other public facilities either.

Currently, I might set up a free tatoo spot in a public park. If this idea caught on and others did the same it might bring in an endless string of truck drivers, white supremacists and gang members to public parks in my area looking for free 'ink'. At this point the government would likely then step in and rule that free tatoo giveaways are illegal in public parks, though it would restrict some freedom of expression. Doesn't mean that white supremacists, trucks drivers and gang members have restricted access, nor would it mean I couldn't give out free tatoos elsewhere.

My opinion is that this is similar to Dallas's anti-panhandling law, just in reverse. I believe that there is nothing wrong with this notion really. Frankly, our church does tons to help the underpriveledged, but I don't believe that homeless people in parks and on street corners everywhere in Vegas bodes well for the only real industry in Vegas... tourism.

If the city is still allowing good samaritans to do their "deeds" in their own buildings, off city streets, etc... then it's probably best for all involved.

If I were to live in Las Vegas and wanted to make this all work, you could simply wander the streets giving out directions to the free food, pamphlets, or simply telling people. Word of mouth would spread this notion quickly.