Feeding the homeless in parks

Following a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones on Wednesday, the city of Las Vegas remains free to enforce its trespassing laws against those who commit crimes in city parks; to designate parks for the exclusive use of children and their guardians; and to require permit applications for park gatherings of more than 25 people.

But -- following up on his temporary injunction of a year ago -- the judge permanently enjoined enforcement of the city's ban on feeding the homeless in city parks, holding that ordinance unfairly targeted the indigent.

Even that didn't go far enough for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. ACLU General Counsel Allen Lichtenstein vowed to carry the group's 14-month-old legal challenge to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, insisting all the related ordinances are selectively enforced and unconstitutionally targeted at the indigent and the unkempt.

Mayor Oscar Goodman and the City Council garnered some say-it-ain't-so national coverage last year when they enacted their anti-handout ordinance.

In the shorthand language of the national news nugget, audiences around the nation doubtless got the impression it was now illegal for a homeless person to place food in his mouth in Southern Nevada -- and that the bodies of the victims of this legally mandated epidemic of starvation would soon be piling up like cordwood.

Of course, the city never banned the feeding of these gentlemen of the road. Las Vegas and the surrounding jurisdictions continued to encourage the missions and soup kitchens that feed hundreds while observing sensible health and hygiene regulations, precisely because those are the places where other interventions are made available to those who aim to get back on their feet.

Rather, the July 2006 ordinance was aimed at preventing the ad hoc chuck wagons of well-meaning activists such as Gail Sacco from drawing "the homeless" away from such shelters and into city parks and playgrounds, effectively preventing their intended use by the neighborhood children and families whose taxes fund these small oases.

The problem got so bad that the city finally closed the little park at Huntridge Circle, which had become a derelicts' bivouac decorated with condoms, feces and discarded drug paraphernalia.

Ms. Sacco expressed some relief last week that her charitable endeavors have been re-legalized -- though she still expresses concern about the possible application of the "permit" law, warning it's hard to guarantee no more than 24 people will show up when one starts handing out free food.

"I don't want to go to jail just for feeding homeless people," she says. "We aren't doing this to be arrogant. We go where people are hungry. The food is a way to build a sense of community."

Once people are fed, they can be more receptive to accepting other forms of help, Ms. Sacco contends.

No one doubts the good intentions of those who wish to feed the hungry. And even bums have a right to enjoy public spaces. Better to tolerate the unsightly than go back to imprisoning non-violent people for the "crimes" of poverty or talking to their shopping carts.

But has no one noticed how much less friendly our "open" spaces grow as architects and landscapers are now set to do a job, de facto, that the ACLU and the courts forbid us to accomplish, de jure?

Benches in the park and the post office now feature metal bars set at uncomfortable angles to forbid anyone even dreaming of lying down. Roadside verges that once sported a small patch of grass are now "landscaped" in barren gravel and sharp-edged boulders to discourage even a weary worker from sitting down while waiting for his ride.

What next: flower beds full of shrapnel?

The only real solution is some form of privatization. In the meantime, perhaps homeless "advocates" would be better served mimicking Phoenix's old Project Hope -- under which activists cruised local parks in vans offering to help those down on their luck find shelter, a shower or medical care ... somewhere else.