Feeding the homeless banned in Houston

[Amaroq]

So the government has banned a couple from feeding the homeless in Houston, Texas. I'm no altruist, but it's rather disgusting that the government is preventing people from -voluntarily- helping the poor.

I think it's a very eloquent example of how government regulations can never make anything better. Just as the government makes the economy and various industries worse by regulating them, the government is hurting the homeless by regulating peoples' ability to feed them if they so desire. It's essentially the same thing. And it can serve as a perfect example of this to people who can't grasp how regulations in other areas are a bad thing.

Your thoughts?

[Dante]

Wow, people need a permit for everything these days. Government gone insane.

[SapereAude]

Wow, people need a permit for everything these days. Government gone insane.

I can't watch videos on my computer (horrible internet connection).

Can someone emplain to me what reason is given?

There are some instances that make a lot of sense to put some level of control over where certain sevices can be offered- cases where the place turns into a nuisance to the neighborhood, raises crime rates and brings down property values. This is from first hand experience- not speculation. Lest my throat get jumped down I am not advocating government regulation but rather putting forth than some externalities are reasonable to consider. For example- a place that services large numbers of released criminals is likely to draw registered sex offenders- and therefore sensible to keep such services away from schools.

[bluecherry]

They said people need a permit and to use some special type of kitchen to be allowed to feed the homeless because they seem to prefer the homeless get no food than food the government hasn't approved of the safety of.

[SapereAude]

They said people need a permit and to use some special type of kitchen to be allowed to feed the homeless because they seem to prefer the homeless get no food than food the government hasn't approved of the safety of.

Did they say what specifically they needed?

I think we all know this goes deeper than "the government doesn't want people feeding the homeless" and is most likely a symptom of other regulatory abuses.

For example- if this was in a rental complex that I shared space (and which I was in first and locked into a binding lease unable to leave)with I wouldn't want them cooking without proper fire suppression systems in place. Their doing so would directly impact me and my business. Think of it as a reverse of "coming to the nuisance".

Are they demanding that the kitchen be built out to specific health code? Two factors in that- one- businesses that do have to build out to health code at great expense would rightfully take offense to an exception being granted to this project simply because the motives are altruistic. Two- it is entirely within the realm of possibilty that if the city knows that the place is serving food to the public without being code compliant and several homeless people get sick that there would then be a lawsuit against the city for allowing the place to exist while not to code.

I am not arguing for government regulation here- it is true the government should not be involved to begin with.

But the fact is that the government is involved and that has consequences.

[SapereAude]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7381016.html

I found this online which helps me understand it a bit better although it is hardly a thorough story.

It seems to fall under my liability theory- they are treating it as a food hazard concern (which I am not claiming is legitimate).

The problematic nature of this case is as follows:

1) 100 homeless people get sick maybe a couple die. The families find an ambulance chasing lawyer to sue the city for $50 million because the city knew the organization wasn't compliant and let them continue anyway. It is of note that this isn't just a couple handing out food to people-they started a non-profit organization. The government can't really tell me that I an individual cannot hand you, an individual a sandwich. But once you become an organization (for the purposes of the benefits that grants) you open yourself up to these things.

2) Massive e-coli outbreak amongst those fed. Hundreds of homeless clogging emergency rooms on the taxpayer's dime. Several require organ transplants due to organ failure brought on by the combination of lifestyle and food poisoning. Millions on treatment, millions in lawsuits, and millions spent on the lifetime disability they will now be collecting.

Again- I am not advocating regulation here- if anything I am pointing out why the regulation shouldn't exist- because once it does all these things need to be taken into consideration instead of just "I have some extra food, let's feed people with it."

As a dweller in an out of control nanny-state city overrun with homeless who are constantly suing the government over something or other these problems are all too apparent.

[Tyco]

Apparently the civil war / unrest in Tunisia kicked off after a man set himself on fire (later died in hospital), in despair/protest of the government's effect on his life, namely his unemployment.

He had been selling fruit and vegetables from a cart in the street, when gov officers confiscated his business wares for not having a license. While this would probably happen in the UK too... when living conditions are already that poor, it seems extra perverse.

[SapereAude]

when living conditions are already that poor, it seems extra perverse.

Living conditions that poor are the result of government interference.

I suppose that is why I'm less appalled than others about the article.

Advocates for the homeless are by and large big-government progressives. They want people & businesses taxed and regulated to supply their causes. Now they are upset that regulation is preventing some of their own from doing "good deeds". They need to see that their policies are designed to turn on them.

If you choose to have a custodial father figure government eventually you will get spanked by it- and sent to bed without supper.

[Black Wolf]

Living conditions that poor are the result of government interference.

I suppose that is why I'm less appalled than others about the article.

Advocates for the homeless are by and large big-government progressives. They want people & businesses taxed and regulated to supply their causes. Now they are upset that regulation is preventing some of their own from doing "good deeds". They need to see that their policies are designed to turn on them.

If you choose to have a custodial father figure government eventually you will get spanked by it- and sent to bed without supper.

Their policies are already turning on them, but they don't seem to realize it.

Our current tax law, for example, is what's keeping people homeless. There's no motivation for someone to hire a homeless man if he has no I.D. or mailing address. To accept a homeless man who does not have this would be hiring someone under the table - which is illegal. So what's he supposed to do? Panhandle for a P.O. Box? That's great, but you already have to have a mailing address to be able to do this. Even so, a P.O. Box will only get you so far.

It is rather hypocritical for liberals to support zoning laws, though.