bloodrayne
07-21-2006, 11:41 AM
Feeding Homeless Outlawed
ACLU calls measure unenforceable
Las Vegas, Nevada - 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.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-20-Thu-2006/news/8589438.html
ACLU calls measure unenforceable
Las Vegas, Nevada - 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.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-20-Thu-2006/news/8589438.html