San Antonio chef ticketed $2,000 for feeding the homeless

[Cissy]

San Antonio chef ticketed $2,000 for feeding the homeless

11:57 a.m. ET
*
Chef Joan Cheever serves high quality, healthy meals to the homeless people of San Antonio, Texas out of her food truck each week, a project she started in 2005. Though she's been running the "Chow Train" for years, local police recently slammed Cheever with a ticket carrying a fine of up to $2,000 because she brought prepared meals to the feeding location in a pick-up truck, take-out style:

There will be a candlelight vigil tonight at 8 pm in Maverick Park (Broadway and Jones) -- aka the scene of "the crime"...

Posted by The Chow Train on Tuesday, April 14, 2015

As the court date to contest the ticket approaches, Cheever is considering mounting a religious freedom defense, citing laws very similar to the RFRA, which caused so much controversy in Indiana this spring. "This is how I pray," she says, "when I cook this food and deliver it to the people who are less fortunate."

In the meantime, Cheever will continue to serve weekly meals in spite of the ticket. Bonnie Kristian

http://theweek.com/speedreads/550053...eding-homeless

[Anti Federalist]

In the meantime, Cheever will continue to serve weekly meals in spite of the ticket.

Until she gets SWATTed and arrested of course.

[Cissy]

Come Memorial Day, I wonder who it is who will be honored in the local obligatory worship-the-state Sunday service---the woman or the officer?

[Anti Federalist]

What say you, Romans 13 believers?

[specsaregood]

Until she gets SWATTed and arrested of course.

Sounds like she has a nice probably expensive food truck that would make a decent asset seizure as well.

[Anti Federalist]

Come Memorial Dat, I wonder who it is who will be honored in the local obligatory worship-the-state Sunday service---the woman or the officer?

Good question...

See post #4

[presence]

"This is how I pray," she says

look lady either you're a Christian, a hindu, a jew, or one of them mooslums; else you're damn atheist and you don't pray so don't give me any $#@!

[acesfull]

She should be getting a good Samaritan award. What the F is wrong with people..

She should demand a jury trial, case closed.

My .02

Acesfull

[Mani]

Looks like fines aren't doing enough.

Next step is a good handcuffing and ride in the back of a cruiser to teach her a lesson, if that doesn't work she might require a good beating until she realizes she cannot go against the king's orders.

[Cissy]

She should be getting a good Samaritan award. What the F is wrong with people..

She should demand a jury trial, case closed.

My .02

Acesfull

Citizen caused officer unnecessary guilt and duress by helping instead of harming her fellow man. Citizen must be fined into compliance.

Citizen following in the footsteps of uppity Jew approx. 2000 years ago who dared to worship his God rather than worship the State (Emperor) and who was just,y put to death by the state for violating the dictates of officers of the state, refusing to install a Roman eagle in the place of worship, and teaching that there is only one God---and the State is not He.

[Todd]

Wonder what the Cops would have done at the feeding of the 5000....

Oh wait.....

[fisharmor]

There will be a candlelight vigil tonight at 8 pm in Maverick Park (Broadway and Jones) -- aka the scene of "the crime"...

Why do people do this?
Who in the history of anything has ever given a dusty $#@! about candlelight vigils?
Who continues to think these things are a good idea?
What possible purpose can they serve?

[Acala]

She should be getting a good Samaritan award. What the F is wrong with people..

What's "wrong" with people is that they want their children to be able to play in the park without a bunch of ragged, often drunk, hobos laying around and that is what happens to a park that becomes a feeding station. Or it is businesses that don't want customers deterred by filthy, mentally ill people loitering on the sidewalks outside. Or it is people who don't want the homeless urinating and defecating in their yards and alleys. It is the same in every city. And you will note that the feeders are almost NEVER doing the feeding in their own yards. They do it in other people's neighborhoods and those are the people who complain.

It boils down to yet another problem with competing interests in public property. The solution is to get rid of public property.

[GunnyFreedom]

What say you, Romans 13 believers?

Oh, I believe in Romans 13 allright. Just not theire interpretation of it.

[GunnyFreedom]

What's "wrong" with people is that they want their children to be able to play in the park without a bunch of ragged, often drunk, hobos laying around and that is what happens to a park that becomes a feeding station. Or it is businesses that don't want customers deterred by filthy, mentally ill people loitering on the sidewalks outside. Or it is people who don't want the homeless urinating and defecating in their yards and alleys. It is the same in every city. And you will note that the feeders are almost NEVER doing the feeding in their own yards. They do it in other people's neighborhoods and those are the people who complain.

It boils down to yet another problem with competing interests in public property. The solution is to get rid of public property.

Sure, it's something the free market would handle a lot better. Until then, so long as such a thing as 'public property' exists, then extraordinary care must be considered before restricting any kind of access to it. Laws intended to repress the homeless will eventually justify the oppression of everyone.

[Cissy]

Wonder what the Cops would have done at the feeding of the 5000....

Oh wait.....

+rep

[Weston White]

Chef cited by police for feeding homeless

What an utter prick:

“One of the police officers said, ‘Ma’am, if you want to pray, go to church,’ And I said, ‘This is how I pray. When I cook this food and deliver it to the people who are less fortunate,” Cheever went on to say.

And on cursory examination, the muni-codes do not seem to favor the position of the citation--and 'food truck' does not seem to be present within the codes either:

Sec. 13-63. - Operation requirements and restrictions.

(a) Mobile food establishments are subject to the following requirements and restrictions unless specifically addressed otherwise:
...
(4) Mobile food establishments may operate in parks subject to the requirements set in section 22-2

Sec. 22-2. - Vendors operating in parks.

(a) It shall be permissible for properly licensed vendors to offer for sale in city parks, prepared and packaged food items and soft drinks subject to the following restrictions:

(1) Vendor's vehicles, carts and other conveyances shall be restricted to park roads and parking areas.
(2) No vending shall be permitted in recreation or other park activity buildings.
(3) Vending shall not be construed to mean dispensing of soft drinks or prepackaged food items from vending machines.
(4) Vendors may not operate in any city park or park facility covered by a city concession contract.
(5) Vendors shall not use any utility outlets in the conduct of their operations.
(6) Vendors shall pick up trash and refuse accumulations in and around their area of operation.
…

Sec. 13-3. - Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Food establishment shall mean an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption:

(1) Such as a restaurant; retail food store; satellite or catered feeding location; catering operation if the operation provides food directly to a consumer or to a conveyance used to transport people; market; vending location; conveyance used to transport people; institution; or food bank; and

(2) That relinquishes possession of food to a consumer directly, or indirectly through a delivery service such as home delivery of grocery orders or restaurant takeout orders, or delivery service that is provided by common carriers.

Food establishment includes:

(1) An element of the operation such as a transportation vehicle or a central preparation facility that supplies a vending location or satellite feeding location unless the vending or feeding location is permitted by the regulatory authority; and

(2) An operation that is conducted afoot, in a mobile, stationary, temporary, or permanent facility or location; where consumption is on or off the premises; and regardless of whether there is a charge for the food.

(3) An establishment that offers only prepackaged foods that are not potentially hazardous;

(4) A food processing plant;

(5) A bed and breakfast limited, bed and breakfast extended and bed and breakfast food establishment facility as defined in the Texas Food Establishment Rules.

For the limited purpose of permits, food establishment shall not include:

(1) A food establishment that only sells whole, uncut fresh fruits or vegetables;

(2) A mobile food establishment that only sells whole, uncut fresh fruits or vegetables;

(3) A temporary food establishment that only sells whole, uncut fresh fruits or vegetables; or

(4) A temporary food establishment that only gives away pre-packaged, non-potentially hazardous foods.

Food handler shall mean a person, regardless of age, engaged in the preparation, handling or vending of food.

Food vendor shall mean any person, group of persons, firm or corporation who individually or by or through an agent or employer, offers for sale, sells, attempts to sell, exposes for sale or gives away any food intended for human consumption from any vehicle or by a person afoot.

Vehicle shall mean every device in, upon, or by which any food is or may be transported, pushed or drawn.

Vend shall mean the act of dispensing food by a person from a mobile food establishment or afoot within or without a building and shall include for the purpose of this article the act of offering to give away and to give away any substances intended for use as food.

https://www.municode.com/library/tx/...TIINGE_S13-3DE

And consumer is not defined within the muni-codes, thus: “a person who buys goods and services.”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumer

[acesfull]

Sure, it's something the free market would handle a lot better. Until then, so long as such a thing as 'public property' exists, then extraordinary care must be considered before restricting any kind of access to it. Laws intended to repress the homeless will eventually justify the oppression of everyone.

+1 REP

[luctor-et-emergo]

Giving something you own to someone else is a right, not a privilege.

As a side-note, I always feed lost strangers and old friends.

[Acala]

Sure, it's something the free market would handle a lot better. Until then, so long as such a thing as 'public property' exists, then extraordinary care must be considered before restricting any kind of access to it. Laws intended to repress the homeless will eventually justify the oppression of everyone.

Actually the laws are intended to manage competing interests over public resources. It is an inevitable conflict. Restricting access to and activity on public property is a CONSTANT job. Otherwise you would literally have people building houses and running livestock in the parks. But in my experience issues like this involving the homeless are ALWAYS complaint-driven. This is not an attempt by the government to "repress" the homeless or anyone else. The government actually doesn't give a damn about it. It is the result of neighbors who don't like people coming into their neighborhood and engaging in activities that attract the homeless, who most people don't actually want hanging around their homes. The neighbors call their council member and bitch until the council aid calls the cops and tells them to go put a stop to it. And, frankly, it isn't fair that a person from one side of town can roll into another neighborhood and do their "praying" in a way that places the burden on other people.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

What's "wrong" with people is that they want their children to be able to play in the park without a bunch of ragged, often drunk, hobos laying around and that is what happens to a park that becomes a feeding station. Or it is businesses that don't want customers deterred by filthy, mentally ill people loitering on the sidewalks outside. Or it is people who don't want the homeless urinating and defecating in their yards and alleys. It is the same in every city. And you will note that the feeders are almost NEVER doing the feeding in their own yards. They do it in other people's neighborhoods and those are the people who complain.

It boils down to yet another problem with competing interests in public property. The solution is to get rid of public property.

Actually the laws are intended to manage competing interests over public resources. It is an inevitable conflict. Restricting access to and activity on public property is a CONSTANT job. Otherwise you would literally have people building houses and running livestock in the parks. But in my experience issues like this involving the homeless are ALWAYS complaint-driven. This is not an attempt by the government to "repress" the homeless or anyone else. The government actually doesn't give a damn about it. It is the result of neighbors who don't like people coming into their neighborhood and engaging in activities that attract the homeless, who most people don't actually want hanging around their homes. The neighbors call their council member and bitch until the council aid calls the cops and tells them to go put a stop to it. And, frankly, it isn't fair that a person from one side of town can roll into another neighborhood and do their "praying" in a way that places the burden on other people.

Good point, that everyone missed. Yes, governments are terrible entities in general & they should be criticized where criticism is due but sometimes people just go overboard in their pursuit to turn every issue into a stick to beat up the government with.