Feds fuck over the homeless again

[undergroundpanther]

The rich thugs they really do want to KILL the Poor and they do it in the name of"helping them"! First shop OWNERS arrest people for dumpster diving or pour ammonia on the produce they throw out so no"bum" gets a "free meal" now THIS. This type of bullshit not only hits church dinners,it also nixes donated food and I think it is aimed at shutting down Food not Bombs.


No home cooking for the homeless
County wants all food served to the public made in an inspected kitchen. The casserole has been canned.
Under a tough new policy in Fairfax County, Va., residents can no longer donate food prepared in their homes or a church kitchen — be it a tuna casserole, sandwiches or even a batch of cookies — unless the kitchen is approved by the county, health officials said Tuesday.

They said the crackdown on home-cooked meals is aimed at preventing food poisoning among homeless people.

But it is infuriating operators of shelters for the homeless and leaders of a coalition of churches that provides shelter and meals to homeless people during the winter. They said the strict standards for food served in the shelters will make it more difficult to serve healthy, hot meals to homeless people.



http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4365924.html

If people can get food without paying a rich person the powers of the "market" cannot coerce so easily. People in control of their own food supply who SHARE it are a threat to centralized power that wants us dependant on centralized power therefore obedient to the state.

[ceile]

1. Truly, truly depressing.

What have we become that we will deny people a home cooked meal?

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Harsh, yes, but look at it this way

The whole point of the food safety laws is to prevent major outbreaks of food-related sickness. That is why restaurants, grocery stores, cafes, even street corner hotdog stands must be inspected and certified periodically. Why is it heartless to apply those same standards to all food prepared for others who are not family or personal guests? If Fairfax County is extending existing food safetly laws to include charity food providers rather than creating new provisions that only apply to charity food providers, there is really nothing to complain about.

[mongo]

5. Do you really think this is a big problem?

That scores of homeless people are getting food poisoning from food prepared in church kitchens?

Yes -- food safety laws are good. But is the effect of these laws being applied to church kitchens do more to prevent food poisoning, or to provide a chilling effect on charities and thus cut off food supplies for homeless people?

[AngryOldDem]

21. Trust me, It's not.

Homeless shelters could not begin to possibly feed their guests without donations of casseroles and other food from outside groups and individuals. It is up to the shelter to inspect the food, properly store it, and then properly prepare it. Also, the kitchens and food-storage areas of shelters are open to inspection, and shelters must be licensed to serve food.

To think that people who see feeding the hungry as a mission are somehow careless -- or sinister -- with their donations just angers me beyond words.

The sad fact is that many in society -- especially in government -- hope that the homeless just go away, by any and all means possible. I know that sounds harsh, but I know whereof I speak.

If the city goes ahead and passes this law, then I hope that it will provide revenue so that the shelters can adequately feed their clientele. That is the VERY LEAST it can do.

[Richard Steele]

9. It's HEARTLESS because it applies to people who are eating from DUMPSTERS.

Because this basically says:
"People currently eating out of dumpsters are prohibited
from recieving REAL, HOT meals instead of cold garbage...
because they might get sick."

Frankly, this "logic" is such complete bullshit
that "heartless" is really the BEST possible
explanation for it.

[ContraBass Black]

3. They chose the risk of there not being enough over the risk

Of disease and poisoning.

[enid602]

6. shelter

Fine, but why don't they just have the would-be donors bring unopened, packaged ingredients and prepare it at the homeless shelter. Probably wouldn't take them any more time.

[ContraBass Black]

7. As the shelter would likely be an approved kitchen,

This law should promote that.

[MadHound]

13. On average, a USDA approved kitchen costs around $25,000 to build

And an average of around $1000 to maintain. This is more than many places can afford to pay for. And while such expenses are tax deductible for for profit corporations, non profits get no such dedcution, they have to eat the cost.

Sorry, but this is another heartless policy designed to "deal" with the homeless here in the most prosperous country on the face of the earth. Sadly, I think that their solution is looking all too "final". And while they like to keep pushing the meme that all the homeless are drunken, drugged bums, the reality is that the largest growing segment of the homeless population is women and children, generally single moms with kids. We haven't consigned our children to these sorts of stark problems in such numbers since the days of the Gilded Age. Of course we're breaking a lot of Gilded Age records these days, including the gap the exists between the rich and the rest of us.

[mongo]

8. Sounds to me like they are "fixing" a problem that doesn't exist

in order to reduce services for homeless people. It is an attempt to drive homeless people out of the county.

Is a homeless person more likely to get food poisoning from something prepared in a church kitchen or something they found in a dumpster?

[ContraBass Black]

4. Feds? There's nothing federal about it.

This article is about Fairfax County, Virginia.

[Mike Daniels]

15. And Fairfax is one of the bluest areas in Virginia, voting for the Dem candidate

in the last two presidential elections and the most recent election for governor.

[ContraBass Black]

17. It's also very affluent, one of the richest on the East Coast

But with very badly strained race relations in the schools.

[Igel]

10. UCLA's student-run food service operations used to

donate a lot of food to and through local food banks. They stopped it; our lawyers and our "supervising authority's" lawyers intervened. Once the food left the premises--in ASUCLA containers--they had no control over it; if it spoiled or was contaminated outside off ASUCLA premises it would be a bear to show that it wasn't contaminated and didn't spoil under ASUCLA supervision. There was even the chance that it could spoil on the premises--food poisoning is known to happen from time to time. Donating food wasn't part of the operations covered by insurance, and the food bank couldn't guarantee that if a recipient got sick they wouldn't sue.

In other words: Give away the food and somebody just might eventually get sick and even die from it, suing the pants off the organization because, well, formally it appears to be part of the large and monied University of California system. The legal liability wasn't worth it. When management on advice of counsel strongly suggested we suspend giving away the food, they pointed to court cases filed in other states. The Board agreed: We couldn't afford half a million dollars in court fees or in settlement.
The program was canned. And several hundred meals per day were taken away from--i.e., no longer freely provided to--the poor.

A couple of years later I was on the ASUCLA Board, and the issue came up. We revisited the decision and agreed it was lamentable, but correct.\

BTW, I don't see where the feds are involved in the decision reported on in the article you posted. It's a local matter.

[Riddler]

11. So it's better to starve to death than run the risk of getting food poisoning?

Sounds like repuke logic to me.

[Mike Daniels]

16. See post 15 if you think this is "repuke" logic

[AngryOldDem]

22. That seems like a very flimsy reason to me...

...but I understand the fear of litigation and the desire to avoid it at all costs.

I would think that once the food is donated, said food becomes the responsibility of the donee.

[BushOut06]

12. Speaking as one who used to be homeless and depended on those kitchens to eat...

They weren't always clean. Once in awhile, we would see a rat somewhere in the shelter. But it was our home. It was a place where we knew we could get a warm meal - and usually a pretty damned good one at that. The people that ran the shelter were truly trying to help people. Under those types of laws, this place would have been shut down, and we would have had NOWHERE to eat. Which probably would have some of us to turn to crime in desperation, in order to secure basic needs.

When I hear stuff like this, it must makes me sick. Most people have no friggin clue what it's like to be truly down on your luck, homeless and unemployed.

[thingfisher]

14. Even the finest restaurants have had rat problems.

This over zealous approach to regulation is insane! I bet there are plenty of private homes whose kitchens couldn't pass the standards set up for commercial establishments. Anyone who wants to hand out food to the hungry should not be hindered by any form of regulation.

The SPECTRE of charities being sued by irate homeless people is to absurd to comment on.

Oh yeah, consider the county we are discussing here. The rich do not want to deal with homeless folk spoiling the pristine beauty of their upscale diggs, so just make it impossible for them to exist there. Voila! Problem solved.

[bobbolink]

18. You know, we need all your voices speaking up loudly and clearly on our behalf!

They are getting away with all this crap because there isn't much protest.

Please, we need you!

[AngryOldDem]

23. To second that....

...I know people are really strapped for time, but please, if you have a few evenings to spare, volunteer at your local homeless shelter. It is the only way to become an effective advocate for a population that is, effectively, without a voice.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. What's the plan here? To starve the homeless out?

Think about this from the perspective a homeless person. You find a meal where you can. Your choices are limited to the kindness of the few charities who are still allowed to let you near their establishments, an ever dwindling number, and dumpsters. Dumpsters are not USDA approved, needless to say. And it's becoming more and more common for people to add toxins to the refuse in an attempt to dissuade homeless from gathering near dumpsters.

This leaves the few charities that are allowed to feed the homeless taking in more to feed. Now they're in essence making it so many will no longer be able to afford to qualify to do so.

Exactly where is the upside to this?

[bobbolink]

20. you got it!!

The funny thing is, there are so many of these things like this that give exactly that message.... "You are a no-good bum, and need to get rid of yourself for the good of this country. You're bringing us down."

Then, when the poor person finally *gets the message*, and it ready to off himself/herself, they're told, "You're obviously clinically depressed, and we need to incarcerate you and give you happy pills up to the gills."

Geeeeee, what smarts. :eyes:

[nam78_two]

24. Yay lets fuck over the homeless again!

:grr:

I have worked with a lot of shelters and this policy is senseless and infuriating...
:wtf:


There is chronic food shortage in most shelters and its really sickening when hungry people show up just to find the foods run out. This makes NO sense-it isn't even as though there has been an outbreak of sickness liked to this resently. This is just targetting the weakest section of our society :grr:

[theHandpuppet]

25. So should we send them all to Taco Bell, perhaps?

This is just B.S.! I'd like to know just how many reported cases of food poisoning have been due to church kitchens feeding the poor and homeless.