Nothing pisses me off more than these stories. If I lived in either one, I would arm myself to the t, feed homeless, and dare a cop to touch me. How do they think the media would cover that? Rioting would ensue.
I bet if you investigate this you will find there is another organization that is "permitted" by the city that does not like it that this guy is not permitted. I bet you a complaint was filed by someone. I doubt seriously any bureaucrat would be motivated enough to do this without a complaint.
Yeah, this is pretty extreme. But the article mentions a project the city is working on and maybe they're trying to keep the homeless from ruining that investment - one of the reasons I avoid going to Down Town Vegas is because of the beggars, they're a pain in the ass and can sometimes be aggressive.
There has to be a better solution than arresting people who are just helping those that need it.
I ran into some harassment in Memphis when I was involved with a similar weekly project to feed the homeless.
The complainers were a few folks who lived in downtown apartments.....the police eventually stopped listening to them. You come across like a complete jerk when you're against private citizens helping homeless people
(03-30-2014 10:44 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: I bet if you investigate this you will find there is another organization that is "permitted" by the city that does not like it that this guy is not permitted. I bet you a complaint was filed by someone. I doubt seriously any bureaucrat would be motivated enough to do this without a complaint.
They passed regulations on food trucks to put the little guys out of business... They're considering these Saints food vendors.
A lot of cities do this because these groups hand out food, but don't stick around to clean up. A church used to hand out food in a parking lot in downtown Charlotte every weekend and the city finally put a stop to it because the homeless people would just throw their trash all over the ground and the church group wouldn't stick around for clean up.
The reality is that we'd be in better shape putting these people in housing than we would be taking food and drinks to their tents. It is cheaper for cities to put these people in small studio apartments than it is to pay all the costs associated with being homeless. Having a place to live also makes it easier to attain stability and get a job. Getting a job when you are homeless is virtually impossible.
(03-30-2014 10:30 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote: Nothing pisses me off more than these stories. If I lived in either one, I would arm myself to the t, feed homeless, and dare a cop to touch me. How do they think the media would cover that? Rioting would ensue.
No, prison would ensue.
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2014 12:59 PM by EagleX.)
That is such an hysterical web site. You have to go three links deep and google a few things to get to the real story.
It's a permit issue if you want to feed homeless people in the park. You can feed them anywhere else, just not there. Now, it's not the smartest city ordinance I've ever heard of, but it's not storm troopers throwing good Samaritans in the gulag, either. And presumably, the permit isn't impossible to obtain, but maybe it is. That's probably not the point.
homeless people follow free food. homeless people bring with them a whole assortment of public safety issues. Concentrations of homeless people in the public park makes the public park unusable by the public. thus, the city would prefer that the good Samaritans use the free food to concentrate the homeless people someplace -- anyplace -- besides the public park, so the public isn't afraid to take their children there.
See? No one goes to the gas chamber. Everyone lives.
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2014 01:00 PM by EagleX.)
(03-30-2014 10:30 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote: Nothing pisses me off more than these stories. If I lived in either one, I would arm myself to the t, feed homeless, and dare a cop to touch me. How do they think the media would cover that? Rioting would ensue.
No, prison would ensue.
Hey cop, don't you have some speed traps to set and homeless to arrest?
You are the only Police State supporter on this board... Look around you dude... you and your kind are on a short leash, from Judges to Media to public opinion to some of Congress.
(03-30-2014 10:30 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote: Nothing pisses me off more than these stories. If I lived in either one, I would arm myself to the t, feed homeless, and dare a cop to touch me. How do they think the media would cover that? Rioting would ensue.
No, prison would ensue.
Hey cop, don't you have some speed traps to set and homeless to arrest?
You are the only Police State supporter on this board... Look around you dude... you and your kind are on a short leash, from Judges to Media to public opinion to some of Congress.
Watch your back out there.
certainly not a cop. and the few cops I do know would fall over laughing if they knew you said that.
I don't know what most of the rest of that mess even means. police state? huh? a short leash? by whom? you? hell, if you do what you say you're going to do, you are either going to prison or the morgue. and my kind? wait, are the judges and the media with me, or against me?
if you're going to throw down an edict like that, you should put it in a clearer sentence.
if you want to live some place where the "rights" of the homeless to stink up public spaces are studiously protected, which makes them places where the rest of the public is afraid to go, try nancy pelosi's san fransisco.
it's a also a perfect model for rampant liberalism. and remember, jerry, you're judged by the company you keep.
(03-30-2014 07:02 PM)EagleX Wrote: if you want to live some place where the "rights" of the homeless to stink up public spaces are studiously protected, which makes them places where the rest of the public is afraid to go, try nancy pelosi's san fransisco.
it's a also a perfect model for rampant liberalism. and remember, jerry, you're judged by the company you keep.
Even the name EagleX screams Internet narc. No real conservative would ever support BANS to feed poor. I just want to know how much Obama pays you?
Quote:but it's not storm troopers throwing good Samaritans in the gulag, either.
homeless people follow free food.
1- Actually, Sumitarians are being threatened with jail which is the basis of this thread.
2- Pray tell, why aren't all homeless people fat if they just walk around "following free food"
You are so transparent dude. I hope all of you realize that this dude is a troll and shun him.
(03-30-2014 10:57 AM)Niner National Wrote: The reality is that we'd be in better shape putting these people in housing than we would be taking food and drinks to their tents. It is cheaper for cities to put these people in small studio apartments than it is to pay all the costs associated with being homeless. Having a place to live also makes it easier to attain stability and get a job. Getting a job when you are homeless is virtually impossible.
Free apartment, free food, free Obama phone. Why would they get a job?
(03-30-2014 07:02 PM)EagleX Wrote: if you want to live some place where the "rights" of the homeless to stink up public spaces are studiously protected, which makes them places where the rest of the public is afraid to go, try nancy pelosi's san fransisco.
it's a also a perfect model for rampant liberalism. and remember, jerry, you're judged by the company you keep.
Even the name EagleX screams Internet narc. No real conservative would ever support BANS to feed poor. I just want to know how much Obama pays you?
Quote:but it's not storm troopers throwing good Samaritans in the gulag, either.
homeless people follow free food.
1- Actually, Sumitarians are being threatened with jail which is the basis of this thread.
2- Pray tell, why aren't all homeless people fat if they just walk around "following free food"
You are so transparent dude. I hope all of you realize that this dude is a troll and shun him.
dammit, you figured me out. I will reply to your post as soon as I get the "Internet narc" dossier on you. should be tomorrow sometime. and as soon as figure out what a "sumitarian" is.
(03-30-2014 10:57 AM)Niner National Wrote: The reality is that we'd be in better shape putting these people in housing than we would be taking food and drinks to their tents. It is cheaper for cities to put these people in small studio apartments than it is to pay all the costs associated with being homeless. Having a place to live also makes it easier to attain stability and get a job. Getting a job when you are homeless is virtually impossible.
Free apartment, free food, free Obama phone. Why would they get a job?
As it stands now, these people can't get a job when they're homeless. Many have mental health issues as well.
They create a number of public issues that cost us, the taxpayers money. Between the crimes they commit so they can get a warm bed and some food in the winter and frequent trips to the emergency room, they cost us millions.
Giving homeless housing has proven very successful in saving money in cities across America where pilot programs have been rolled out.
Or would you prefer they keep being a greater financial burden on society with almost 0 hope of ever bettering themselves by living on the streets?
(03-30-2014 07:47 PM)EagleX Wrote: dammit, you figured me out. I will reply to your post as soon as I get the "Internet narc" dossier on you. should be tomorrow sometime. and as soon as figure out what a "sumitarian" is.
(03-30-2014 07:47 PM)EagleX Wrote: dammit, you figured me out. I will reply to your post as soon as I get the "Internet narc" dossier on you. should be tomorrow sometime. and as soon as figure out what a "sumitarian" is.
Your time has come
you obviously didn't read the "dead violent crazy guy" thread.
as fuxxored as the APD (and the entire city of albq, for that matter) appears to be, if your fatuous fears of an american police state were anything even remotely approaching accurate, the police would have fired into the crowd and fed the bodies to feral hogs. that's what police states do.
(03-30-2014 07:47 PM)EagleX Wrote: dammit, you figured me out. I will reply to your post as soon as I get the "Internet narc" dossier on you. should be tomorrow sometime. and as soon as figure out what a "sumitarian" is.
Your time has come
you obviously didn't read the "dead violent crazy guy" thread.
the police would have fired into the crowd and fed the bodies to feral hogs. that's what police states do.
They did - tear gas. Thanks for proving my point, and God Bless.
PS - They've shot and killed a half dozen unarmed citizens this year too.
(This post was last modified: 03-31-2014 11:45 AM by Jerry Falwell.)
(03-30-2014 07:47 PM)EagleX Wrote: dammit, you figured me out. I will reply to your post as soon as I get the "Internet narc" dossier on you. should be tomorrow sometime. and as soon as figure out what a "sumitarian" is.
Your time has come
you obviously didn't read the "dead violent crazy guy" thread.
the police would have fired into the crowd and fed the bodies to feral hogs. that's what police states do.
They did - tear gas. Thanks for proving my point, and God Bless.
PS - They've shot and killed a half dozen unarmed citizens this year too.
tear gas is one of those non-lethal measures you were bitching about the cops not using when they shot the violent crazy guy. you need to make up your mind.
