if you’re going to feed more than five people at a time, ask for a permit and attend our seminar so we can advise you how to do it safely and meet health code
if you’re going to do it on public property, do it at the site we’ve set up for this purpose
if you’re going to do it on private property, go for it after you get permission from the property owner
Instead, the people who got in trouble set up a food truck at a public library.
Seminar sounds like the city can make it difficult by not offering it or charging some ridiculous price. Other than that, finding a business to let you use their parking lot once a week doesn’t sound that difficult. People do it all the time.
if you’re going to do it on public property, do it at the site we’ve set up for this purpose
From what I’ve seen when this was first posted on Lemmy, “the site we’ve set up for this purpose” was the former police headquarters. A lot of people, especially not rich people living unhoused, might not want to go onto police property, especially in a city like Houston.
That’s an excellent point. It does surprise me that there’s only one designated public location. Houston is a huge place. You’d think there would be one in each district at very least.
…the point of the law is to stop people feeding the homeless. In their fucked up minds, if they make the city inhospitable to the people without money or resources, they’ll leave. Ignoring the fact that they don’t have the resources to do that. So it’s basically a “if you’re homeless, die quickly” law.
The city has had an ordinance restricting how volunteers can feed people since 2012, but it's gone largely unenforced until recently, The Houston's Chronicle's R.A. Schuetz wrote. The rule stipulates that a person must obtain permission from a property owner before providing food to groups larger than five.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would I think a parent would be glad that someone was looking out for their kid. I mean, how difficult was it to prove when they landed that this was her kid? Wouldn’t a drivers license with the same last name suffice, and then everyone just moves on happily ever after? Did they handcuff her or something?
Mary MacCarthy and her then 10-year-old daughter, both California residents, flew to Denver on Oct. 22, 2021, for a funeral after the sudden death of MacCarthy’s older brother, according to the complaint filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. After landing at the airport, MacCarthy said they were greeted by two armed officers from the Denver Police Department.
Funny, when I do read the article, it very clearly states the mother and daughter were flying together. Here’s the first two paragraphs. I’ve bolded the parts where it’s clearly stated they were travelling together.
A White mother who said she was questioned about human trafficking while traveling with her biracial daughter has filed a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, accusing the company of “blatant racism.”
Mary MacCarthy and her then 10-year-old daughter, both California residents, flew to Denver on Oct. 22, 2021, for a funeral after the sudden death of MacCarthy’s older brother, according to the complaint filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. After landing at the airport, MacCarthy said they were greeted by two armed officers from the Denver Police Department.
Depends on how far it goes. Kids aren’t required to carry an ID to fly domestically. And as a parent I wouldn’t carry their birth certificate everywhere. So if the name on the ticket isn’t enough it would be quite the fucking problem.
As far as the lawsuit, it depends if the tsa was being dicks, if mom was being a dick etc. If it was a quick check and mom lost her shit because she thought it was based on race, or if security blatantly said it and mom lost her shit and it turned into a bigger deal.
But the airline isn’t responsible for what the TSA does with the report. They’re solely responsible for their employees actions. I doubt the lawsuit will go anywhere against the airline; unless they were being particularly offensive as well
The very same ticket bought by the hypothetical human trafficker? Airports don’t ID kids, so whatever name is on their ticket is just assumed to be theirs, meaning the name on the ticket matching the adult’s ID isn’t a verification of anything.
Nah, parents hate when people look out for their kids. Check out what’s happening in FL… they’re trying to teach kids history in schools and it’s banned as CRT. They’re trying to teach AP Psychology and it’s banned because there’s a chapter about gender non-conformity in the text book.
The problem is that I’m guessing this mom is getting questions and looks every time she goes out with her daughter.
The SW staff could have just as easily pulled the names on their tickets- which you’d have to have ID to get, anyhow- as checked their ID. The cops could have done that as well. Including pulling up her id in the DMV database they have access to. “yup. that’s her.”
The cops could very easily have just pulled the mom’s ID off DMV, looking at the information supplied to buy her ticket. That’ll get them to her on the DMV. If her ID is valid, it won’t offer any more information than is on the DMV, and there’s really no way to prove they’re your kid at all.
One of the reason I keep old photos (and new) of my niece and nephew- especially photos of me with them- is so to show cops when I get them called on me for being a single man doing “mom”-things at the park. Dealing with cops because you don’t fit some karen’s idea of who should be taking kids to a park gets old very fast.
And to be perfectly blunt, “you should just be grateful we care” is incredibly ignorant; and the staffer was probably just following protocol. but the reason they did it was fundamentally rooted in racism.
My kids are biracial, coming up and accusing me of having abducted them because I’m white passing is not looking out for my kids, it is telling them they are Other.
I’d be fine if they just would get over their lying, grifting, shit-slinging “leaders.” Of course, while I’d like if there were “legitimate” conservative candidates, the truth is that I don’t know what that would even look like. Eisenhower?
It’s based off existing IP, though, so not as fresh as we would like. This is more likely to lead the studio execs to think they can mine kids toys for content, rather than think writing is important.
Apparently Polly Pocket and Uno are going to have their own movies as well. I am not totally sold on Polly, but I am all in for Uno. I hope they put in a draw 25 or really showcase the extreme desperation associated with not finding your card. But yeah, new compelling content please.
Lol I mean this in a friendly way. You’re either too sober or too wasted for my stoned ass. I see it opposite, and love both. I’m a simp for all sorts of card games; uno and all their “expansions” turn me on
But I can see how they can actually movitize Polly pocket (eg like green army men in toy story) There’s a whole Pocket world! I love miniaturized things and Polly pocket was the fucking shit
Which is hilarious because after the long and expensive process of producing them (likely during the strike so the writing and acting will suck), the companies get a delayed box office bomb on their hands when they try to hype up their Hot Wheels “it’s fast and furious for 9 year old boys” movie.
“If war broke out and the conditions were too difficult to safely remove the naval mines in actual combat, we would use our own bodies to clear a safe pathway for our (landing) forces,” Zuo Feng, a frogman with the PLA Navy’s minesweeper unit, said in a testimonial.
faced with the choice of maybe getting blown up by a mine… or definitely getting blown up by a mine and everyone you loved maybe getting added to the PLA navy minesweeper unit and maybe getting blown up by mines…
well, yeah. sounds like their minesweeper unit is gonna have a lot of casualties.
You can’t sprawl your way out of this problem, despite Texas’ best efforts. All you do there is create traffic.
The answer is simple. Legalize housing. More triplexes, more quadplexes, more ADUs, 5 over 1s, more of everything. Developers want to fill this demand. They can’t. They’re hamstrung by city ordnances and state laws that often only allow apartments or single family housing. Not everyone wants or needs a separate house. Make rent boring again and the corporations will lose interest.
This. I own my home and could probably fit at least two ADUs on my property but the permitting fees alone exceed the cost of construction. Not to mention the cost and hassle of obtaining a permit.
Eh, I mean there is a record number of vacant homes at the moment. The investor class owns a fuck load of housing that could be actually be used to ya know, house people. I’d bet If a large tax was placed on 2nd homes /income property, there’d be no supply shortage. So many people bought homes for AirBNB, and rent seeking in the last decade that in years past would be being bought by families. I know in my town they’ve been putting up high rise after high rise. Rent still goes up because of (imo) artificial scarcity. Landlords are using software to fix price on rent, banks intentionally trickle out foreclosures to not flood the market, companies with vacant units are not allowed to drop price of rent and keep pricing high because of financing agreements made when the building was built. Most of the luxury apartments that have been built are maybe 30% full. No one wants to live in a duplex/ triplex /multiplex. People want houses, and there are none because companies like Blackstone backed Invitation homes and Chinese companies/ citizens buy them all to rent seek.
The ripple effect from these rate hikes might help drop rents because a lot of commercial loans are ARMs, and when that rate adjusts, landlords are going to feel pain, but they may just pass it on to their tenants and make housing affordability even worse. We’ve allowed too many people to commodify what was once viewed as a necessity, and the single family home is now an investment vehicle for big business.
The real estate market as a whole feels like a giant game of hot potato at the moment. Something has got to give. The America of today is so much worse than the one I grew up in as a result of all the BS we’ve allowed the investor class to do. It needs to get reigned in somehow because imo the American dream is dead as a result.
A vacant home doesn’t mean affordable or accessible. Single family homes are stupidly inefficient and expensive or in middle of nowhere. Dense cities are the only solution.
there is a record number of vacant homes at the moment.
We’re currently close to the record for all time lowest vacancy rates. We’re at 6.3%. The highest (over the past 70 years) was in 2009, at 11.1%. It got down as far as 5% a few times. I downloaded the raw data and it says the average is 7.28%
There’s a popular image of a bunch of Scrooge McDucks sitting on giant inventories of housing but the evidence doesn’t support that. Someone saying, “I saw a bunch of empty houses.” is exactly as logical an argument as a climate denier saying, “It’s been cold all week.” That’s just an anecdote.
The data is very clear on the matter. We don’t have enough housing.
The core problem, which causes that shortage, is that we have conflicting views on what housing is for.
On one hand, we want housing to be a right. On the other hand we want our houses to be good investments.
Those are conflicting goals. We need to pick one and be ready to sacrifice the other.
If you want your house to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate in value at a rate higher than inflation. The only way for that to happen is if housing keeps getting more expensive on a real money basis. That’s a fancy way of saying that housing will be a bigger and bigger chunk of income.
Every single policy that reduces the cost of housing also degrades its effectiveness as an investment. If people can get housing any time they want, they have no incentive to pay somebody a bunch of money to someone hoping to fund their retirement by downsizing.
Your suggesting to legalize more housing will destroy the ability of homeowners to make a profit off their homes. Even though I stand to earn huge amounts of money from the appreciation of my own house I would support that, but I’m afraid I’m in the minority. The US has a 65.9% home ownership rate and for most people their home is their single biggest asset. If we address the housing shortage those people will all see their single biggest investment asset drop in value.
On the other hand we want our houses to be good investments.
I don’t.
I understand you’re speaking in general terms here but no, i think having housing being tied to investments at all is a terrible idea we’ve just normalized.
The flip side of course we’ve experienced, like 2008 when the market went sour, putting people out of home and destroying retirement funds
I don’t think it’s a good idea either but we live in a society that effectively decided that we do want houses to be investments decades ago. That’s entrenched now and many people bet their life savings on the promise that their house would be a good investment.
If we change that without taking those people into account they’re all screwed. While some rich people would get screwed in that process a whole lot of poor people would get screwed too.
I bought a house, not because I wanted an investment, but I wanted a place to live. Fuck the CCP, but man were they on the money saying “Houses are for living in,” their current, ironic, housing bubble aside. Houses are homes. You want an investment vehicle, buy stocks or bonds.
If the people who see housing as an investment are outweighed by the people who simply want an affordable home as a right, it’s become an unsustainable and unjust privilege and needs to be rectified.
Also, I think this ignores the larger factors of: poor zoning due to NIMBY-friendly policies at the local level, and corporate greed as companies, not people, buy up supply. Solve these two problems and we don’t have to pick between housing as a right and housing as an investment.
The problem with this plan is that it assumes that we’re only hurting some cigar puffing Wall Street fat cats but, in reality, the pain would be felt much more broadly.
Those super wealthy people that we’re happy to throw under the bus don’t have their wealth tied up in their homes. Their real estate investments tend to be small fractions of their portfolios. The ones that would get hit the hardest are the ones with less than $100k. I’m glad that you’re in a position where you can survive a large financial loss on your house but a lot of people don’t have that luxury.
Any plan that just kills their investments without some way to take care of those people will create a disaster. Maybe we could bump up Social Security somehow? That would involve significant tax increases but it could plug the gap.
Huge swaths of our economy are set up to assume that houses are financial assets. NIMBY policies are largely about maintaining or increasing the financial value of the real estate. The corporations buying up all the housing are kind of a red herring. The US has one of the highest owner occupancy rates in the world. There has been a slight (about 1.6%) in non-own occupied housing and only a fraction of those 1.6% are corporations. So it’s technically true that corporations hold more residential real estate but they hold so little of it that it’s unlikely to be a primary factor in home pricing or availability.
As I said elsewhere, the data is very clear on the matter. We don’t have a lot of empty housing inventory being horded by greedy investors. By any reasonable measure, we have a housing shortage.
As someone who worked on multi family property development for fifteen years–for the love of God, force the developers to build to a standard. Simply requiring that the landlords pay all utilities would go a long way toward this, since it would incentavise building a better structure.
These kinds of “rogue groups” are everywhere and it’s terrifying. This kind of stuff should be unacceptable, but cops somehow almost always get away with it. Even if they don’t, they simply change to another city.
Every time I see a cop, it makes me a bit worried about what they might do. I move away from them as quick, but as inconspicuously as possible. Cops aren’t there to protect us. They’re there to punish whomever they deem fit.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.