MAZE Posts Epic Mehdi Hasan Self-Own Over Search for the Far-Right, White Pipe...
Bulwark’s Tim Miller Applauds Jamie Raskin’s Investigation Into Trump's 60 Minutes Intervi...
'Major Milestone’: Home in Pacific Palisades Receives Final Approval From the City
When Jake Tapper Said the J6 Pipe Bomber Was a ‘White Man’ and...
Rep. Jerry Nadler Explains Why States Are Refusing to Hand Over SNAP Data:...
Pramila Jayapal: ‘Being Undocumented Isn’t a Crime’ – Federal Law and Half of...
Jim Acosta Says Trump Should Be Impeached Over Hateful Comments About the Somali...
Another ‘Police Brutality’ Story Collapses: Woman Refuses ID to Protect Illegal Boyfriend
JD Vance Is Hearing Rumors That the EU Commission Will Fine X Hundreds...
George Clooney's Casual Muslim Brotherhood Flex: Bragging About Wife's Terror Ties on Barr...
Mayor Brandon Johnson Refuses to Entertain Racist Question About Teen Violence in Chicago
Rep. Ilhan Omar Claims She Knew Nothing About $250 Million Welfare Fraud Scheme
Dumbo Gumbo: Leftist Pro-Illegal Alien Protesters Disrupt Council Meeting Over New Orleans...
Mollie Hemingway Nails It — FBI Sat on Jan 5 Pipe Bomb Intel...
Local News Reports on the Rich History of Somali Integration in Minnesota
Premium

No, Houston has not made it a crime to feed the homeless

Jeff Lewis/AP Images for AIDS Healthcare Foundation

With these VIP posts, I think now and then it would be good occasionally to slay a misunderstanding of the law I see on Twitter. Sometimes they are common, sometimes they are not.

It started the other day with this video:

And a libertarian leaning guy I follow wrote this in response:

This led to an argument where someone claimed that this was somehow Biden’s fault (it isn’t, except in the vaguest sense of “leadership,” maybe):

But let’s back up a bit. Is it illegal to feed the homeless in blue Houston? I did a little digging and here’s what I am seeing, in Houston’s ordinances.

First, in Sec. 20-252 it says:

It shall be unlawful for any organization or individual to sponsor or conduct a food service event on public or private property without the advance written consent of the public or private property owner or other individual with lawful control of the property.

So that says you just need written consent. But its even thinner than that. If you scroll to Sec. 20-251, you see it defines the terms of that ordinance. I won’t go over every term defined, but let’s start with this definition: 

Food service event means each instance in which charitable food services are provided to more than five individuals.

Thus the statute requires that you are giving to at least six persons at the event. Therefore, handing a random homeless guy a hot dog isn’t a problem. But handing out hot dog to more than five people, and you might have a problem. But it gets dumber than that. The same definitional statute says:

Charitable food services means providing food without charge, payment or other compensation to benefit those in need at an outdoor location not owned, leased or controlled by the individual or organization providing the food.

So, you could 1) take it indoors, or 2) just do it on property you own, rent or otherwise control. Now from a little reading it appears that basically the city refuses this permission on every public property except for a police station. But nothing stops these people from buying or renting a property and handing out food for free. What Houston bans is these kinds of events on other people’s property, including public property, without permission.

And it is worth noting that this is also not a rule specifically tied to a person being homeless. Anyone who thinks only homeless people take advantage of programs at churches and the like where free food is provided has no experience with that. I have helped such organizations and many of the people who get free food this way have homes, but are still poor.

Honestly, I don’t know why this organization feels so strongly that it has to go onto public property and do this sort of thing, except maybe for the publicity of crying that they are being oppressed.

So really, none of the initial statement is true.

Finally, I am faintly irritated with the term “unhoused.” Of course, the purpose of always coming up with new terms for old concepts appears to be nothing more than indicating group identity. It’s like saying “see? We are using the newest terms so you know I am one of you.” And it’s a pretty terrible term as such terms go.

In any case, the next time you see this claim being made, you can know it is a myth. 

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement