~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
We require people who have syphilis to divulge who their sex partners were...
We require property owners...to install their septic tanks... [to] estop them from contaminating the neighbor's well...
So why should we be terribly upset about an ordinance which makes it illegal to operate a residential kitchen...in a city park or a city sidewalk?
Alan's analogies(?) are not parallel. In his syphilis example, the requirement exists so that sex partners can be warned that they may have contracted the disease. A parallel requirement might be that feeding programs for street people would have to divulge that the food was prepared in uninspected home kitchens. In his second case, you are simply dealing with the property rights of adjacent land owners. The case for regulation of septic tanks is that the contamination from absent or improperly installed tanks does not reveal itself as would, say, burning toxic waste in the back yard. I find it amusing that the law is supposedly so concerned with food purity for the "homeless." Hang out near a fast-food place sometime and watch the street people dumpster dive for the half-eaten remains of other people's Big Macs. That is the true alternative to volunteer feeding programs. (That, or getting a job.) The truth is that local officials are perverting the health codes to harass these operations, not to "protect the homeless." At it's core, it is a hypocritical abuse of power, not unlike the invocation of the Four Horseman to keep strong crypto out of the hands of average Americans. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~