Feeding homeless outlawed
ACLU calls measure unenforceable

By DAVID MCGRATH SCHWARTZ
REVIEW-JOURNAL



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.

found @ http://www.rawstory.com
and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

not very difficult to see how these people are viewed by city council

"do not feed the animals" type of thing, ya know?

i wonder if they'll put signs up...

the city is attempting to rid parks of the "eye sore" that is the homeless

i don't believe they really give two fucks about whether it's "counter productive" or not, though

i believe that they give two fucks about "cleaning up" their parks

and i wonder if they'll be setting up new programs to feed these people now?

i somehow doubt it

thank god for the ACLU.
that's absolutley absurd.

__________________

bunch of people with too much time on their hands do weird things like this. people need to stop wasting time and worry about something, you know, IMPORTANT.

agreed.

OKAY, cause having it be ILLEGAL TO FEED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING IN NEED OF FOOD totally doesn't mean anything "important" to anyone... especially not HUNGRY PEOPLE. you're probably both spoiled middle class white girls who have never had to worry about being fed? i dont mean to jump to conclusions, but that's based on your lack of compassion for mankind. idiots. i hope you starve half to death, and then maybe you'll wake the fuck up to what's "really important." idiots.

not to be presumptuous, but perhaps they meant making a law against feeding the homeless is unnecessary?

hahaha yeah. or that.

oops. my bad.

i guess im a little offended that no one really bothered with this thread.

What would Jesus do?

Tell the homeless to starve to death, I guess.

Loose slots and $4.99 lobster dinner for the tourists.

But if you're homeless, we don't care.

Ah, Las Vegas. Truly it is... Sin City.

^ this is true.

it sounds to me like the law is forcing the homeless to seek out help, rather than stay in one pace and have it given to them.

i deal with this issue everyday at my job and its so frustrating to see people giving someone money and then they turn around and buy beer with it. i refuse to ever help someone who has no intention of helping themselves. the city offers so much and it just takes a little persistence and patience to benefit from it.

this kind of politics isn't new to las vegas

Personally I love Las Vegas and I think it’s easily ruined by the homeless. It spoils the squeaky clean image of it – especially down the strip.

If I was walking down the strip and a homeless person was sitting there I’d kick him and then tell him to get the fuck off cos he’d be ruining the ambiance of the place and I certainly wouldn’t encourage them by feeding them.
You see here in London we have a very similar thing. We have to stop feeding the pigeons in Trafalgar Square because there are too many of them and they spoil all the sights by shitting on everything – and man their shit is like acid - so basically they’re making the place look untidy. I see the homeless in Vegas in a similar light.

If I’m not allowed to feed the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, why the fuck should I feed a homeless person slobbing around the Luxor while I’m trying to enjoy spending all my money on roulette! I don’t wanna see that shit sitting there.

Vegas! I fucking love it.

If all the things that go on in Vegas, that is what's illegal? I'm confused.

god this is funny but im kinda shocked if i think it's the real hoppindeth, lol anyway

You're kidding yourself if you think they have some altruistic motives in doing this. They want the homeless people out of the way because we here in the US don't like to see the problems we create, it's as simple as that. They don't give a fuck what happens to homeless people, they just don't want them around because it might hurt their bottom line.

P.S. The ACLU will win. We had a similar case here in Atlanta. Although this was before the panhandling ban in the downtown area- I haven't followed that case as closely.

Oscar Goodman is an elitist pig. You should see the private school his wife owns .

What a "fascinating, non-judgmental" country we live in.

You what it is though, it's the fact that homeless people are in fact just lazy individuals who really *can* go get a Wall St. job and make millions a year... they just don't want to. On top of that, they HAVE the choice to be money-hungry, hateful, conservative people, but they just don't want to be "proper" and "respectful" of what this country really means.

What does this country really stand for?

Respect for the rich, conservative white man with the stay at home woman who takes care of the household duties and is always available for food and sex. That's freedom, right?

Real as they come baby!

Las Vegas already attracts a certain irresponsible element. It has high visibility and that draws a transient population. Along with year round arid weather it could be a potential nightmare for law enorcement and social services. A truly needy resident would get attention and support by going through channels that screen the needy from the underground criminal element that will not and cannot subject themselves to identification and background checks. An easily accessible source for daily food in the parks will not adaquately address the homeless isssue, nor the problems with which police agencies are already over-loaded.

These so-called benefactors of the homeless could soon be accompanied by less well-intended distribution of illegal substances, etc. and may interfere with regulated businesses and non-profit agencies that are geared to provide safe assistance to newcomers before they get too well connected with the wrong crowd. Imagine a 16 year old run-away that could live under the radar for months before asking social services for help. In the beginning it would appear to a young person that those helpful and misforunate street people were friends, where in the long run you know a 16 year old is going get into deeper trouble eventually.

This may be a law that protects those NOT yet homeless from their own lack of good judgment.

"they" may not have a motive in it, but its indiectly forcing the homeless in that area to seek out what they need elsewhere.