No Feeding the Homeless

Because it makes the neighbors mad:

Activists sued [Las Vegas] Wednesday to strike down a new city law that makes it illegal to feed homeless people in parks.

The law violates free speech, free assembly and other rights, says the federal suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.

The group and its members regularly served meals to homeless people in a Las Vegas park, angering neighbors and sparking the debate that led to the ordinance, passed July 19.

Why on earth would people get angry about volunteers who spend their time providing meals to the homeless? Because, according to city attorney Brad Jerbic, the “mobile meals program” draws homeless people away from shelters. “The shelters provide food, beds, counseling services and doctors. What this is doing is, it's pulling them away from services and abandoning them in these parks.”

Hmm. Careful Brad—someone might think you would prefer the homeless get tucked away out of the sight of your heartless constituents whose doorsteps are darkened by the ugly underbelly of the American Dream. Especially someone who has worked with the homeless in a big city before, and knows that mobile meals programs are life-saving for homeless people who, being homeless and all, generally don’t have the means to get themselves across town to shelters. Especially someone who has spoken to homeless people who have managed to scrape together enough money to get themselves there, but get turned away at the door, because they don’t always have an open bed.

If the people of Las Vegas are so bloody concerned about homeless people not being privy to shelters, perhaps they would do well to consider if the quality and quantity of the shelters is appropriate to service the homeless population—perhaps there’s a reason they prefer the park, as opposed to just being dumb animals who can’t make a rational choice if there’s a free meal in front of them. Perhaps they ought to speak to those hideous homeless people and find out why they aren’t going to the shelters. Is it a deliberate choice? Are the shelters ill-managed and insecure? Are women and children who go to the shelters at increased risk of sexual assault? Or is it lack of opportunity? Would the homeless population in the park be keen to go to the shelters if transportation was provided? Is it a combination of issues?

None of this matters in America 2.0: Gilded Age Redux. It’s better just to pass an ordinance forbidding volunteers from helping the needy, so the fortunate don’t have to be tainted by images of misfortune. Solve the problem as if the homeless were pigeons—just stop feeding them and they’ll go somewhere else.