Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know what bothers me the most, the people who sit back and bang on about how we have to have laws like this and feel justified that these people have been stopped...I hate it that a huge amount of Americans don't care that other Americans walk the streets with no place to lay their heads, no idea where their next meal will come from. When I see the homeless, it eats away at me. The job I have now, I often see homeless people on the way there, its so sad. Anyone that can reach out to them, help them, give them something like a meal is an awesome person in my book.
If I had the money, I would be right there beside them.
The free market argument says - if they are serving bad food and people get sick, then the public will decide not to eat their food - and they will be forced to shut down because people stopped eating there.
No regulation needed.
This is why we shouldn't let some immoral, "invisible hand" make tough moral decisions in our society. The city council (you know, people) are going to look at the rules and evaluate. There is plenty this couple can do within the rules to feed the homeless. There are certified bar/lounge kitchens that sit idle in the mornings, for example.
About 5,000 people die every year in this country from food-related illness.
The free market doesn't care about that, which is why we have rules made by humans, not some invisible, ideological force with no moral values.
Regulation needed (so that even good-intentioned people don't make homeless people sick or dead).
I thnik the real probelm is that they cannot get a permit really. It also seems strnage that it applies to tose that gibv=e food away the same as tsoe that sell food. One would think that if it applies to thsoe that give ot away then its important to govenr food in homes that feed relative alos.Some standrards shoud aplly but actaully chargign a charltiy that does a government function seems stupid in the extreme.Its likie saying that government wnats me to have a poermit thaqt they charge fro in order to allow guest to eat in my home or at a picnic I give.Governam,nt can't even do the job of makig the food safe as it is lookig at health department reports and probelms. That is where they should concentrate :IMO.
The free market argument says - if they are serving bad food and people get sick, then the public will decide not to eat their food - and they will be forced to shut down because people stopped eating there.
No regulation needed.
Ok, so homeless people aren't worthy of being protected from contaminated food, right?
Would you apply the same standard to restaurants? (Hint: That's what we had before and it was precisely the sickness and death which resulted in the health laws we have now.)
LOL, so make the homeless search through garbage cans for food instead right? Yeah save them from contaminted food.
It's not an either or question, unless you want to make it one.
There's nothing wrong with feeding the poor and homeless. Just do it within the health laws for the protection of all. Lot's of homeless charities do it all the time. Do you think that Salvation Army kitchen down the street doesn't have a health certificate? Think again. Hell, we've even got one at the VFW and we rarely feed anyone but members!
I didn't post this, but this decision is rooted from the HHS regulations.
Anyone serving food for public consumption, whether for the homeless or for sale, must have a permit, said Kathy Barton, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department. To get that permit, the food must be prepared in a certified kitchen with a certified food manager.
Herein lies the real proble. The federal gov't should NOT be involved in a city matter. No intetstate commerce here.
Think about the unintended consequences of allowing them to prepare food without the proper permits requiring them to have a healthy environment and have a certified food manager present.
If you allow them to do it, then you must allow others to do it. That could lead to some very sick people and would throw all attempts to protect the public from food borne diseases out the window.
I'm SURE that a church or charitable organization will come forward and arrange for them to continue in a law abiding manner which will be safer for all concerned.
One thing America is good at is being charitable.
Exactly--our church has a commercial kitchen--most newer facilities in nonprofit organizations that prepare food do. This should be easy to straighten out. The good part is that expanding the scope of the program would involve more people, and that means more resources to feed folks. That's a win win for everyone. Safe food, and more support and resources to provide to those in need.
Over-regulation and suffocating bureaucracy is certainly one of the many faces of tyranny. Clearly, our country is sprinting down that very path, ie the extreme cases of the cities that have shut down children's lemonade stands. Obviously some, very limited regulation is necessary to protect the public health and welfare. On the otherhand, could no one implement a common sense solution to the problem so as not to stifle the good works performed by these people? How about the homeless people served sign a waiver rather than subjecting these private citizens to a rigorous food service licensing process. Oh wait, no, because in a beauracracy NO ONE is authorized to make any decision or exercise any discretion in any case without 10 other beaurocrats signing off on it. Nothing can get done and every citizen action will be subject to goverment review. This is just another beautiful example of why big government is bad for our country and bad for our personal freedoms. When our government seeks to regulate every aspect of our daily lives in the name of "safety and security" whether it be food, the environment, or travel, it leaves no freedom to even exercise our own common sense when we deal with day to day issues.
I am no attorney but isn't there still room for people making their own decisions under "assumed risk"? Don't I assume the risk when I buy lemonade from an 8 year old or if I buy pies made in an unlicensed kitchen from a bake sale or has the government deemed me too stupid to do my own risk assessment and must regulate the entire world around me so I won't hurt myself? They think we're Peter Griffin (Family Guy *trademarked)...."Uh, me-a too stoopid too make up my-a own mind!" Hey remember when Cass Sunstein said Americans think simplistically ike Homer Simpson and need governent policy to control them...quote "When Homer, in one episode, went to buy a gun, the gun owner told him that him that there is a three day waiting period. And Homer responded: “What? Three Days? I’m angry now!” So that captures people’s passion and focus on the short term, and it also captures how law and policy can help a lot." Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein in conversation with Chris Lydon, August 21, 2008.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
