think this is disgsting isn't it good morals to help others? What was he charged for?
The charge is a city ordinance violation for unlicensed food distribution in public.
Topic: Arrested for feeding homeless people (Read 8330 times)
The charge is a city ordinance violation for unlicensed food distribution in public.
think this is disgsting isn't it good morals to help others? What was he charged for?
Even if he teaches food safety, it does not mean that he practices it. I have encountered a lot of bad teachers throughout my education (but lets assume that he is a good teacher).
One of the most important things about food safety is the importance of inspections and following procedure. If he does not have a license then he cannot be inspected.
One of the most important things about food safety is the importance of inspections and following procedure. If he does not have a license then he cannot be inspected.
There is no inhibition on inspection without a license. Where do these fantasies come from? All they have to do is show up. The paper grants no magic powers of sight and smell.
The inspectors know about the food establishment because they have a license, they do not use other sources to find where food establishments are
Even if he teaches food safety, it does not mean that he practices it. I have encountered a lot of bad teachers throughout my education (but lets assume that he is a good teacher).
One of the most important things about food safety is the importance of inspections and following procedure. If he does not have a license then he cannot be inspected.
One of the most important things about food safety is the importance of inspections and following procedure. If he does not have a license then he cannot be inspected.
There is no inhibition on inspection without a license. Where do these fantasies come from? All they have to do is show up. The paper grants no magic powers of sight and smell.
If he gets a license then he will have had to receive some kind of instruction as to handle food properly/safely and would be subject to inspections (monitoring) by the local government agency responsible for monitoring food safety. If he does not have a license then such local government agency will not know to monitor him
You probably didn't know this, and are just here to take snipe shots for mo gubberming, but his organization teaches those classes for food safety.
"In addition to feeding the homeless, Love Thy Neighbor operates a culinary training program that Abbott says has helped more than 400 people learn food service skills."
But yeah, more monitoring. Maybe the "monitors" will learn something about food safety from the guy that was doing it for more than the last 20 years without incident.
One of the most important things about food safety is the importance of inspections and following procedure. If he does not have a license then he cannot be inspected.
The people who don't understand the purpose and value of local control and federalism have a lot of reading to do! 
My concern with the federalism argument is where is the line between local autonomy and the unjust infringement of freedom? The fact that a law or ordinance has wide-spread local support doesn't make it just. It's just a smaller group of people restricting freedom.
If he gets a license then he will have had to receive some kind of instruction as to handle food properly/safely and would be subject to inspections (monitoring) by the local government agency responsible for monitoring food safety. If he does not have a license then such local government agency will not know to monitor him
You probably didn't know this, and are just here to take snipe shots for mo gubberming, but his organization teaches those classes for food safety.
"In addition to feeding the homeless, Love Thy Neighbor operates a culinary training program that Abbott says has helped more than 400 people learn food service skills."
But yeah, more monitoring. Maybe the "monitors" will learn something about food safety from the guy that was doing it for more than the last 20 years without incident.
In this case food handling has not been a problem, but you don't get grandfathered in to safety regs.
Think of the outrage if Grandpa was grandfathered in, and then his flock of pet homeless got food poisoning.
It is to his benefit to have the license for legal CYA reasons, if nothing else.
"I've never had to register my Ford Model A with any newfangled DMV before, why should I start now?" -Grandpa Simpson
While old car owners cannot reasonably be expected to retrofit them with seatbelts, they certainly must register with the DMV and have a drivers license.
Yes, even Grandpa Simpson needs to renew his DL once a decade, just to make sure he's not a hazard to others.
All of your points about how silly local regulations are easily avoided by movement are will taken.
The people who don't understand the purpose and value of local control and federalism have a lot of reading to do!
If he gets a license then he will have had to receive some kind of instruction as to handle food properly/safely and would be subject to inspections (monitoring) by the local government agency responsible for monitoring food safety. If he does not have a license then such local government agency will not know to monitor him
You probably didn't know this, and are just here to take snipe shots for mo gubberming, but his organization teaches those classes for food safety.
"In addition to feeding the homeless, Love Thy Neighbor operates a culinary training program that Abbott says has helped more than 400 people learn food service skills."
But yeah, more monitoring. Maybe the "monitors" will learn something about food safety from the guy that was doing it for more than the last 20 years without incident.
after they eat,they will shit wherever etc and nobody will clean it up
This is not likely the issue either.If people eat, they shit, and someone (possibly themselves) clean up.
if people don't eat, they die, and someone (not themselves) clean up.
There are already public restrooms on that beach.
The violation is a food safety ordinance, go figure. Without the city licence, the homeless would only be able to sue this 90 year old guy that has been feeding them for the last 25 years before the new ordinance. If they suddenly got sick on his food (and not the stuff they pulled from the garbage) they wouldn't also be able to sue the city.
The city wants to also be responsible.
The license is easy to get, but it can also be denied. This seems to be one of those "principle" disputes. There aren't really any practical concerns, just a power struggle between a long time resident and his city.
Emergency rooms cannot deny anyone medical care, so the taxpayers are on the hook when indigents get food poisoning.
Because old people in Florida do not wish to spend their final Golden Years living among human excrement, they will have to pay to clean up the used food left in the park and surrounding lawns/streets/sidewalks.
The idea that the 90 y/o or his pet homeless are going to clean up their own mess is laughable, wishful/magical thinking. The park/beach is intended for the enjoyment of the general population, not a helpless subset of addicts and crazies. When Little Sally comes to visit Grandma and they go to the park she doesn't need to see a junkie, with a needle sticking out of his arm and rolling around in his own filth, taking up a stall in the public restroom.
The park/beach isn't the only place they can eat, so your deadly dilemma is completely false and only for cheap emotional effect.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, they are welcome to eat at appropriate venues with proper food handling, plumbing, etc.
When we arrive in Libertopia and all public property is privatized, these problems will disappear. Until then we must accept the quasi-legitimacy of local communities acting in lieu of proper rational actors to prevent externalities, or else suffer the tragedy of the commons.
Now I'm confused. Is he supplying free heroin or free food?
Where your whole diatribe falls flat, is that he can get a license easily and cheaply to do exactly the same thing. The mythical old people and sally aren't stopping him at all. He just doesn't want to get the license because he doesn't believe that he has to since was doing this in that same place when the guy that invented the license was a toddler.
The "community" isn't against the activity. There is no lack of plumbing or facilities. The food handling is fine too. What is missing is the license.
I suspect that he will learn that he has to either stop or get the license, but that nothing at all will change once he does. No fewer people will shit or get sick, no externalities will change. Just a license whose cost is far less than the expense to process it in this case.
Though I agree with your principles, those aren't the main inflection points in this conflict. The city wants him distributing food there and then, but just wants to control and organize it. For example, with licensing they can arrange for others to do so on other days when he isn't there.
Some public parks will let just anyone host their child's birthday party there and distribute food to kids (oh think of the children!), some of it might even be a cake with dangerous flaming things on top.
Other parks require signups, maybe in this part of Florida such a birthday party requires a license.
In some New York areas you can get arrested for serving a too-large soda, or just pouring any into a very large cup, even if you have such a license.
All these places can make up their own rules, and you can go to places that have rules that you like and avoid the ones you don't.
It is wrong to say they can't make such a rule. It is not wrong to laugh at them for making it.
Chewing Gum and connecting to open WiFi is illegal in Singapore
Handling Salmon in a Suspicious way is illegal in UK
But gum chewers are welcome in London and strange salmon are OK in Singapore (so long as they don't chew gum).
There are also some grandfather clauses, and yes even for some auto safety regulations. Possibly most famously, seat belt laws don't apply to old cars, (now about 50 year old cars are exempt, early 1960s before they were first required).
They possibly could have considered grandfathering this guy in, he is sort of an institution there, he has been doing it so long.
Other parks require signups, maybe in this part of Florida such a birthday party requires a license.
In some New York areas you can get arrested for serving a too-large soda, or just pouring any into a very large cup, even if you have such a license.
All these places can make up their own rules, and you can go to places that have rules that you like and avoid the ones you don't.
It is wrong to say they can't make such a rule. It is not wrong to laugh at them for making it.
Chewing Gum and connecting to open WiFi is illegal in Singapore
Handling Salmon in a Suspicious way is illegal in UK
But gum chewers are welcome in London and strange salmon are OK in Singapore (so long as they don't chew gum).
There are also some grandfather clauses, and yes even for some auto safety regulations. Possibly most famously, seat belt laws don't apply to old cars, (now about 50 year old cars are exempt, early 1960s before they were first required).
They possibly could have considered grandfathering this guy in, he is sort of an institution there, he has been doing it so long.
Why we just don't kill all the bums? =)
Now I'm confused. Is he supplying free heroin or free food?
Where your whole diatribe falls flat, is that he can get a license easily and cheaply to do exactly the same thing. The mythical old people and sally aren't stopping him at all. He just doesn't want to get the license because he doesn't believe that he has to since was doing this in that same place when the guy that invented the license was a toddler.
The "community" isn't against the activity. There is no lack of plumbing or facilities. The food handling is fine too. What is missing is the license.
I suspect that he will learn that he has to either stop or get the license, but that nothing at all will change once he does. No fewer people will shit or get sick, no externalities will change. Just a license whose cost is far less than the expense to process it in this case.
Though I agree with your principles, those aren't the main inflection points in this conflict. The city wants him distributing food there and then, but just wants to control and organize it. For example, with licensing they can arrange for others to do so on other days when he isn't there.
Where your whole diatribe falls flat, is that he can get a license easily and cheaply to do exactly the same thing. The mythical old people and sally aren't stopping him at all. He just doesn't want to get the license because he doesn't believe that he has to since was doing this in that same place when the guy that invented the license was a toddler.
The "community" isn't against the activity. There is no lack of plumbing or facilities. The food handling is fine too. What is missing is the license.
I suspect that he will learn that he has to either stop or get the license, but that nothing at all will change once he does. No fewer people will shit or get sick, no externalities will change. Just a license whose cost is far less than the expense to process it in this case.
Though I agree with your principles, those aren't the main inflection points in this conflict. The city wants him distributing food there and then, but just wants to control and organize it. For example, with licensing they can arrange for others to do so on other days when he isn't there.
I'm glad to hear the park and neighborhood are willing and able to accommodate the charity.
The earlier consensus was that the functional purpose of the license was to control where/when feedings occur.
In this case maybe that's not a problem, but you don't get grandfathered in to safety regs.
"I've never had to register my car with any newfangled DMV before, why should I start now?" -Grandpa Simpson
after they eat,they will shit wherever etc and nobody will clean it up
This is not likely the issue either.If people eat, they shit, and someone (possibly themselves) clean up.
if people don't eat, they die, and someone (not themselves) clean up.
There are already public restrooms on that beach.
The violation is a food safety ordinance, go figure. Without the city licence, the homeless would only be able to sue this 90 year old guy that has been feeding them for the last 25 years before the new ordinance. If they suddenly got sick on his food (and not the stuff they pulled from the garbage) they wouldn't also be able to sue the city.
The city wants to also be responsible.
The license is easy to get, but it can also be denied. This seems to be one of those "principle" disputes. There aren't really any practical concerns, just a power struggle between a long time resident and his city.
Emergency rooms cannot deny anyone medical care, so the taxpayers are on the hook when indigents get food poisoning.
Because old people in Florida do not wish to spend their final Golden Years living among human excrement, they will have to pay to clean up the used food left in the park and surrounding lawns/streets/sidewalks.
The idea that the 90 y/o or his pet homeless are going to clean up their own mess is laughable, wishful/magical thinking. The park/beach is intended for the enjoyment of the general population, not a helpless subset of addicts and crazies. When Little Sally comes to visit Grandma and they go to the park she doesn't need to see a junkie, with a needle sticking out of his arm and rolling around in his own filth, taking up a stall in the public restroom.
The park/beach isn't the only place they can eat, so your deadly dilemma is completely false and only for cheap emotional effect.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, they are welcome to eat at appropriate venues with proper food handling, plumbing, etc.
When we arrive in Libertopia and all public property is privatized, these problems will disappear. Until then we must accept the quasi-legitimacy of local communities acting in lieu of proper rational actors to prevent externalities, or else suffer the tragedy of the commons.
Now I'm confused. Is he supplying free heroin or free food?
Where your whole diatribe falls flat, is that he can get a license easily and cheaply to do exactly the same thing. The mythical old people and sally aren't stopping him at all. He just doesn't want to get the license because he doesn't believe that he has to since was doing this in that same place when the guy that invented the license was a toddler.
The "community" isn't against the activity. There is no lack of plumbing or facilities. The food handling is fine too. What is missing is the license.
I suspect that he will learn that he has to either stop or get the license, but that nothing at all will change once he does. No fewer people will shit or get sick, no externalities will change. Just a license whose cost is far less than the expense to process it in this case.
Though I agree with your principles, those aren't the main inflection points in this conflict. The city wants him distributing food there and then, but just wants to control and organize it. For example, with licensing they can arrange for others to do so on other days when he isn't there.
after they eat,they will shit wherever etc and nobody will clean it up
This is not likely the issue either.If people eat, they shit, and someone (possibly themselves) clean up.
if people don't eat, they die, and someone (not themselves) clean up.
There are already public restrooms on that beach.
The violation is a food safety ordinance, go figure. Without the city licence, the homeless would only be able to sue this 90 year old guy that has been feeding them for the last 25 years before the new ordinance. If they suddenly got sick on his food (and not the stuff they pulled from the garbage) they wouldn't also be able to sue the city.
The city wants to also be responsible.
The license is easy to get, but it can also be denied. This seems to be one of those "principle" disputes. There aren't really any practical concerns, just a power struggle between a long time resident and his city.
Emergency rooms cannot deny anyone medical care, so the taxpayers are on the hook when indigents get food poisoning.
Because old people in Florida do not wish to spend their final Golden Years living among human excrement, they will have to pay to clean up the used food left in the park and surrounding lawns/streets/sidewalks.
The idea that the 90 y/o or his pet homeless are going to clean up their own mess is laughable, wishful/magical thinking. The park/beach is intended for the enjoyment of the general population, not a helpless subset of addicts and crazies. When Little Sally comes to visit Grandma and they go to the park she doesn't need to see a junkie, with a needle sticking out of his arm and rolling around in his own filth, taking up a stall in the public restroom.
The park/beach isn't the only place they can eat, so your deadly dilemma is completely false and only for cheap emotional effect.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, they are welcome to eat at appropriate venues with proper food handling, plumbing, etc.
When we arrive in Libertopia and all public property is privatized, these problems will disappear. Until then we must accept the quasi-legitimacy of local communities acting in lieu of proper rational actors to prevent externalities, or else suffer the tragedy of the commons.
after they eat,they will shit wherever etc and nobody will clean it up
This is not likely the issue either.If people eat, they shit, and someone (possibly themselves) clean up.
if people don't eat, they die, and someone (not themselves) clean up.
There are already public restrooms on that beach.
The violation is a food safety ordinance, go figure. Without the city licence, the homeless would only be able to sue this 90 year old guy that has been feeding them for the last 25 years before the new ordinance. If they suddenly got sick on his food (and not the stuff they pulled from the garbage) they wouldn't also be able to sue the city.
The city wants to also be responsible.
The license is easy to get, but it can also be denied. This seems to be one of those "principle" disputes. There aren't really any practical concerns, just a power struggle between a long time resident and his city.
I am not sure if this is a good idea or not. On one hand the numerous arrests have clearly not deterred this person from sharing/giving away his food to the homeless, however on the other hand it does disregard the rule of law as what he is doing is clearly against the law
If they want him to stop they have to put in some infrastructure that provides food for the hungry and homeless at the very least..... If not amenities as well
Murica turning into Africa?
That infrastructure already exists in the form of soup kitchens, shelters, food banks, and other organized charities.
The old dude chose to ignore that infrastructure and the applicable food safety laws.
The Free Shit Army uses the homeless as a weapon to threaten the middle class, and so insists on feeding them without regard for time/place/manner regulations.
ive seen homeless people eating from garbage cans ........im not sure thats the issue because they do plenty of other stuff that would could make them sick
and medical bills are not taken into consideration
maybe turning public property into a soup kitchen attrcting even more homeless to congregate there is part of the issue
and as already mentioned ,after they eat,they will shit wherever etc and nobody will clean it up
if there was adequate charity soup mkitchens in place ,why would they bother eating this guys food
is it so delicious they cant resist
or is there a shortfall in whats needed and whats actually available ? I am not sure if this is a good idea or not. On one hand the numerous arrests have clearly not deterred this person from sharing/giving away his food to the homeless, however on the other hand it does disregard the rule of law as what he is doing is clearly against the law
If they want him to stop they have to put in some infrastructure that provides food for the hungry and homeless at the very least..... If not amenities as well
Murica turning into Africa?
That infrastructure already exists in the form of soup kitchens, shelters, food banks, and other organized charities.
The old dude chose to ignore that infrastructure and the applicable food safety laws.
The Free Shit Army uses the homeless as a weapon to threaten the middle class, and so insists on feeding them without regard for time/place/manner regulations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/03/after-90-year-old-is-arrested-florida-judge-halts-law-that-restricts-feeding-the-homeless/
The law has been stayed while both sides "mediate."
The law has been stayed while both sides "mediate."
I am not sure if this is a good idea or not. On one hand the numerous arrests have clearly not deterred this person from sharing/giving away his food to the homeless, however on the other hand it does disregard the rule of law as what he is doing is clearly against the law
If they want him to stop they have to put in some infrastructure that provides food for the hungry and homeless at the very least..... If not amenities as well
Murica turning into Africa?
That infrastructure already exists in the form of soup kitchens, shelters, food banks, and other organized charities.
The old dude choose to ignore that infrastructure and the applicable food safety laws.
The Free Shit Army uses the homeless as a weapon to threaten the middle class, and so insists on feeding them without regard for time/place/manner regulations.
Is he very wealthy or how can he afford to run this unlicensed charity?
Just slap him with a million dollar fine every week until he is homeless as well and can join his friends in the park would be very easy solution to the problem for any forward thinking judge
No need to lock him up at all, just take all his assets and that's the end of it.......
I am not sure if this is a good idea or not. On one hand the numerous arrests have clearly not deterred this person from sharing/giving away his food to the homeless, however on the other hand it does disregard the rule of law as what he is doing is clearly against the law
If they want him to stop they have to put in some infrastructure that provides food for the hungry and homeless at the very least..... If not amenities as well
Murica turning into Africa?
That infrastructure already exists in the form of soup kitchens, shelters, food banks, and other organized charities.
The old dude chose to ignore that infrastructure and the applicable food safety laws.
The Free Shit Army uses the homeless as a weapon to threaten the middle class, and so insists on feeding them without regard for time/place/manner regulations.
Jump to: