A Better Explanation of a Bad Idea

After reading this article on the “scaled-back” version of the Mayor’s notion of permission-based charitable meals, I must say that I continue to be against it. What I stated in my previous post about the scaled-back plan was true.

But if this is all about private property rights, then I would think that the property owner has every right to drive anyone off of their property utilizing what is on the books, no?

And how does the Chron describe it?

Although the administration previously had pitched the initiative as a way to protect homeless people from unsafe food and to coordinate the efforts of charities to avoid duplication and wasted food, the stripped-down proposal amounts to a property rights ordinance.

Only, this time around, it seems the cops get to be the ones to proclaim who’s trespassing, rather than (like the rest of us) the property owner reporting any infraction.

The proposed rules would allow police officers to ask servers for proof of written permission from the property owner any time they observe meals being served. If proof is not produced, police can cite the servers on the spot with a fine of as much as $500. The charge can be prosecuted in municipal court.

In other words, cops can question a charity to see if they can be on a property without need of a formal complaint from a property owner. So, guilty until one produces proof?

No, Mayor, I’m not for that. And I implore my new member of Council Mike Laster to vote NO on this ordinance.

We started with protecting the homeless from bad food and ended up with good people required to provide proof that they can be at any given location. I don’t like it when they do this to immigrants (and profiled Latinos), and I sure as heck won’t like it when they do it to people lending a hand.