Dumb government ruling of the day award

[Matthean]

Philadelphia woman faces charges for feeding poor children — RT (http://rt.com/usa/news/philadelphia-woman-food-prattis-966/)

Can't be going out and giving free food to poor kids now can we?

[SirFozzie]

Feeding the poor kids? Why, that's something Jesus might do...

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i'm assuming it's a legal thing? kid gets poisoned and the community would point it's finger at the gov't for not monitoring/stopping it.

not that it makes any sense. but it's the world we live in

[flounder]

She's contributing to the obesity epidemic. Good thing she didn't do it in New York or she would have been facing jail time.

[Neon_Chaos]

Wow. Talk about first world problems.

[DougW]

Kudos Philadelphia. People like Angela Prattis must be stopped !

[BillJasper]

Ridiculous.

This country has become fucked up.

[Warhammer]

We can't have people actually trying to solve people's problems. Politicians would be out of a job.

[DaddyTorgo]

i'm assuming it's a legal thing? kid gets poisoned and the community would point it's finger at the gov't for not monitoring/stopping it.

not that it makes any sense. but it's the world we live in

This is my thought too.

[lcjjdnh]

Let me attempt to defend the seemingly indefensible:

When the governing body creates a law, it can use either a rule or a standard. Rules--say, one cannot distribute food without a proper variance--have a low cost of administration (it's easy to tell if someone violated the law), but can be over- and underinclusive (either penalizing behavior we want to encourage, because someone has good reason for violating the rule; or not penalize behavior we want to discourage, because someone violates the spirit but not the letter of the law). Standards--say, one cannot make an unreasonable use of their property--have the benefit of removing under and overinclusion (we can judge in each case if the activity was a violation), but also add tremendous administrative cost and give great discretion to the people enforcing and interpreting the standard (that is, deciding what is "reasonable"). When the governing body creates a rule, we should follow it, not just because "rules are rules", but because it made a conscious choice to use a rule instead of a standard, possibly to cut down on administrative costs and discretion. Perhaps this is an "easy" case, but there are more difficult cases, that, in aggregate, would create a much bigger headache if we decide we're evaluating each case on a standard instead of by a simple rule.

[MrBug708]

I can understand why the Gov't would step in

[JonInMiddleGA]

i'm assuming it's a legal thing? kid gets poisoned and the community would point it's finger at the gov't for not monitoring/stopping it.

not that it makes any sense. but it's the world we live in

Doesn't look that way. Looks like a zoning issue, based on several uses of that phrase "she must apply for a variance next year". And tbh, from the description of the activity in the story below, I can understand that.

Mom vows to keep feeding needy kids from her driveway despite city crackdown | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/18/mom-who-serves-up-lunches-from-driveway-vows-to-keep-feeding-kids/)

edit to add: Zoning restrictions are a touchy thing. Failure to enforce one is a prime way to attack them in court in subsequent situations (that might not be nearly so feel good a story). I don't believe there'd be any major difference legally between letting this lady feed hungry kids free meals in her driveway and having the guy who owns the local adult bookstore hand out free food & drink to "hungry adults" in his driveway.

[Ben E Lou]

Doesn't look that way. Looks like a zoning issue, based on several uses of that phrase "she must apply for a variance next year". And tbh, from the description of the activity in the story below, I can understand that.

Mom vows to keep feeding needy kids from her driveway despite city crackdown | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/18/mom-who-serves-up-lunches-from-driveway-vows-to-keep-feeding-kids/)

edit to add: Zoning restrictions are a touchy thing. Failure to enforce one is a prime way to attack them in court in subsequent situations (that might not be nearly so feel good a story). I don't believe there'd be any major difference legally between letting this lady feed hungry kids free meals in her driveway and having the guy who owns the local adult bookstore hand out free food & drink to "hungry adults" in his driveway.Right, and maybe we're missing something else like that that's happening, although the council folks sure don't seem to be offering up any explanation. This just seems like one where a city council with any sense just looks the other way until the local adult bookstore starts handing out free food and drink, or whatever. (We ran into that sort of thing a ton with YL and equal access laws. "Y'all can come on campus, but if the Young Nazi Party demands their rights, we'll just shut it down for everyone.")

[gstelmack]

The way to handle it might be to waive the variance fee, but still make her get it.

[Ben E Lou]

The way to handle it might be to waive the variance fee, but still make her get it.At *this* point, maybe. I'm more trying to figure out why they initiated a confrontation in the first place.

[JediKooter]

A $1000 dollars to apply for the variance. I would think that she could probably make that in donations within a week. Beats paying a $600 a day fine.

[molson]

Let me attempt to defend the seemingly indefensible:

When the governing body creates a law, it can use either a rule or a standard. Rules--say, one cannot distribute food without a proper variance--have a low cost of administration (it's easy to tell if someone violated the law), but can be over- and underinclusive (either penalizing behavior we want to encourage, because someone has good reason for violating the rule; or not penalize behavior we want to discourage, because someone violates the spirit but not the letter of the law). Standards--say, one cannot make an unreasonable use of their property--have the benefit of removing under and overinclusion (we can judge in each case if the activity was a violation), but also add tremendous administrative cost and give great discretion to the people enforcing and interpreting the standard (that is, deciding what is "reasonable"). When the governing body creates a rule, we should follow it, not just because "rules are rules", but because it made a conscious choice to use a rule instead of a standard, possibly to cut down on administrative costs and discretion. Perhaps this is an "easy" case, but there are more difficult cases, that, in aggregate, would create a much bigger headache if we decide we're evaluating each case on a standard instead of by a simple rule.

Ya, I think you could make the argument that that the occasional morally problematic outcome (that doesn't involve jail or criminal convictions or anything) is preferable to local government officials deciding who the rules apply to and who they don't apply to. If they want to change the rule, they can change the rule.

[GrantDawg]

At *this* point, maybe. I'm more trying to figure out why they initiated a confrontation in the first place.


My guess: neighbor complained about the kids hanging around.

[Coffee Warlord]

A $1000 dollars to apply for the variance. I would think that she could probably make that in donations within a week. Beats paying a $600 a day fine.

Or, they can exercise responsible judgement and waive the standard application fee, due to special circumstances. That $1000 could instead go to, I dunno, feeding more hungry kids?

[DanGarion]

I was giving out free mustache rides to the fine ladies of my community till the city came and shut me down due to zoning issues.

[JediKooter]

Or, they can exercise responsible judgement and waive the standard application fee, due to special circumstances. That $1000 could instead go to, I dunno, feeding more hungry kids?

I agree. I'm just not confident enough in that level of governmental authority being able to make that kind of decision.

You would think they would weigh things, like, how beneficial it is to the community or that this lady is providing a service that the city doesn't have to pay for. Stuff like that, I see going over the heads of these officials.

[GrantDawg]

I was giving out free mustache rides to the fine ladies of my community till the city came and shut me down due to zoning issues.


That was the CDC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I was giving out free mustache rides to the fine ladies of my community till the city came and shut me down due to zoning issues.

Pumpy?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Or, they can exercise responsible judgement and waive the standard application fee, due to special circumstances.

The next group who decides to flaunt zoning regulations would love that one. So would their attorney.

[DanGarion]

Pumpy?

No women only.

[Ben E Lou]

The next group who decides to flaunt zoning regulations would love that one. So would their attorney.Right, thus my suggestion to simply look the other way until someone complains. and when someone complains, leak who complained. ;)

[CraigSca]

Maybe all the kids were using a neighbor's backyard as a shortcut and the neighbor complained to the police?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Right, thus my suggestion to simply look the other way until someone complains. and when someone complains, leak who complained. ;)

From the article
On a typical summer weekday, neighborhood men set up three plastic tables in Prattis's driveway, along with about 25 folding chairs donated by The Church of The Overcomer in nearby Trainer, Pa. Food from the Archdiocese's "Feeding Program" arrives around 9:30 a.m. truck. Prattis said the eager children are usually on hand when the Archdiocese truck arrives, and help unload their own meals.

As described I'd be raising holy hell. So would most of the people I know. It's a house in a residential neighborhood, it's not a community center. And I know few people who'd be interested in living next to something functioning as one on a daily basis for weeks on end, no matter how good the intentions might be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And while we're on the subject, the nice lady likely put a big bullseye on one of her neighbors to boot.

"We have tons of children, here," Prattis said. "There's a lady who baby-sits a bunch of kids and she brings them around because the parents can't afford to have them in day care and feed them at the same time.

What do you figure the odds are that the lady watching all those kids meets the various laws governing the operation of a child care center (http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3270/s3270.3.html) (which is defined as 7 or more children at any one time in a 24 hour period). Even with a waiver, that babysitter would have to meet all "regulatory standards related to the health, safety and rights of children" and that's typically a pretty tall order to do in a home environment.

[Ben E Lou]

From the article


As described I'd be raising holy hell. So would most of the people I know. It's a house in a residential neighborhood, it's not a community center. And I know few people who'd be interested in living next to something functioning as one on a daily basis for weeks on end, no matter how good the intentions might be.Oh, come on, now. Three folding tables, 25 chairs, and one truck? I work from home in a neighborhood that is, I'm sure, much quieter than the neighborhood described, and I live on a court, just outside the cul-de-sac. Still, I'm quite sure that between Fed-Ex, UPS, and the city, I hear more than a dozen trucks per day that are probably larger, louder, and more intrusive than whatever"truck" shows up at her house. It's only 20 kids and an Archdiocese vehicle, I'm quite sure nothing more than a pickup or passenger van. Many times I fit food for 50-75 high school kids easily in the back of the trunk of my freakin' Honda Accord. ;) Methinks you're picturing a much bigger "production" than it actually is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh, come on, now. Three folding tables, 25 chairs, and one truck? I work from home in a neighborhood that is, I'm sure, much quieter than the neighborhood described, and I live on a court, just outside the cul-de-sac. Still, I'm quite sure that between Fed-Ex, UPS, and the city, I hear more than a dozen trucks per day that are probably larger, louder, and more intrusive than whatever"truck" shows up at her house. It's only 20 kids and an Archdiocese vehicle, I'm quite sure nothing more than a pickup or passenger van. Many times I fit food for 50-75 high school kids easily in the back of the trunk of my freakin' Honda Accord. ;) Methinks you're picturing a much bigger "production" than it actually is.

Screw the trucks, they have a legal right to be on a street. But 20 kids at one house? Multiple days a week? For weeks on end? That's insanity.

[JediKooter]

Can they do it at a local park instead?

[Ben E Lou]

Screw the trucks, they have a legal right to be on a street. But 20 kids at one house? Multiple days a week? For weeks on end? That's insanity.Hehehe. I guess I've always been a "gatherer" to some degree in that regard, and that's where there's the disconnect. My parents weren't feeding them (though they did provide a water hose and sometimes Kool-Aid ;),) but I'm quite certain that there were summers where there were 20 kids outside our house virtually every day for pretty much the entire summer. We had a long front porch with lots of chairs, making it ideal for spades and tonk, and for several summers our b-ball goal was the hoop of choice for East Urban Heights. We'd have 20+ playing ball for 3-4 hours every evening basically every day in the summer.

As a side note, one of my favorite memories is when I got in high school and went to the private school, and Daddy let me have a bunch of kids from my school over. Imagine 15-20 rich white kids sitting on a long front porch in da hood eating chicken and ribs. It was quite a sight to see, both them sitting there eating, and the bruthas walking by trying to figure out WTF was going on. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

but I'm quite certain that there were summers where there were 20 kids outside our house virtually every day for pretty much the entire summer.

But was that in direct violation of applicable zoning and/or childcare laws at the time? Given your age + location, I'd betting not. Things are considerably tighter than they used to be, good/bad/indifferent.

And that's key here. Among the things that zoning provides is a reasonable expectation of consistent conditions in your immediate vicinity.

If there was no regulation(s) in place, I'd be inclined toward more leeway. Fault of the neighborhood for not insisting on such rules if they wanted them and what not. But if they exist (which they apparently do) then she's beholden to follow them, and if she's unable to do that then she's in the wrong neighborhood afaic.

Imagine 15-20 rich white kids sitting on a long front porch in da hood eating chicken and ribs. It was quite a sight to see, both them sitting there eating, and the bruthas walking by trying to figure out WTF was going on. :D

I've seen a few of those scenes over the years (in both directions), the comical confusion that follows is good stuff :)

[Drake]

My guess: neighbor complained about the kids hanging around.

Is that what DougW's "Get off my lawn" thread is about!

[GrantDawg]

Is that what DougW's "Get off my lawn" thread is about!


Shhhhhh! He didn't know this thread would be posted to point it out. :)

[Ben E Lou]

But was that in direct violation of applicable zoning and/or childcare laws at the time? Given your age + location, I'd betting not. Things are considerably tighter than they used to be, good/bad/indifferent.OK, I get that. I'm just saying that I can't imagine someone being bothered by 20 kids, but then I realized that my perspective might be skewed because of my growing up, and also of course by the years on YL staff where it was pretty common for us to have upwards of 50 high school kids at the house (though not daily, to be fair.)

I hadn't even thought about the "child care" angle. I guess technically my mother was "caring" for the kids that would hang out during the day, and both my parents were in the evenings, but this was more from age 10ish on up (or whatever age it was in the late 70s/early 80s where kids were allowed to roam the neighborhood.) Point being, it's kinda weird to even think about my parents as being "babysitters," given that we were rarely inside the house with our friends, and they didn't come outside unless they heard cussin', or Mama just randomly decided to bring out some Kool-Aid or ice cream. But yeah, no idea if it was technically in violation of any ordinances.

That said, it sounds like this neighborhood is worse than mine was. Even in mine, though, I think the overwhelming sentiment would have been "better for them to all be on Mr. Lewis's front porch or playing basketball than 'out in the streets'." I guess that, assuming a neighbor complained, is what is saddening about this situation.

[molson]

Can they do it at a local park instead?

I do wonder where the closest place is they could do this legit with no problems, and if there's a stubbornness that's preventing that. I kind of pictured her handing out food from her house but it's actually a whole production with a van and everything. I would hope there's a readily available and convenient outlet for her generosity somewhere and that she'd take advantage of it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I do wonder where the closest place is they could do this legit with no problems, and if there's a stubbornness that's preventing that.

More like selfishness.

A little digging produced this tidbit (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/suburban_pa/20120815_Delco_woman_who_feeds_neighborhood_children_hits_red_tape.html)
For three years, Prattis ran the program out of a church. But this year she had a new baby, and thought it would be easier to distribute from her home, which she began to do July 16.

Fits right in with this additional info
... Prattis, a massage therapist and stay-at-home mother who also has a foster child and runs a neighborhood basketball program.

[Ben E Lou]

Hmmm...another tidbit from that same article:Anne Ayella, who runs the archdiocesan program, said Tuesday that there were 450 people like Prattis in the area who distribute archdiocese-supplied food from their homes or from churches and other organizations during the summer.

Ayella added that in 32 years of working with the program, she has "never had anything like this happen."So now I'm wondering what it is that we're missing here. Are all those other people paying for the zoning hearing? Or is it just the complaint of one curmudgeon out of 450 neighborhoods that triggered this? (That article does mention that there was a complaint of some kind...)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hmmm...another tidbit from that same article:So now I'm wondering what it is that we're missing here. Are all those other people paying for the zoning hearing? Or is it just the complaint of one curmudgeon out of 450 neighborhoods that triggered this? (That article does mention that there was a complaint of some kind...)

Since the others aren't in question (at least as far as we know) it seems to be fairly specific. But let's consider the source of the 450 figure, an employee of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That's territory that covers nearly 300 parishes and roughly 1.5 million parishioners.

The statute in question concerns Chester Township, PA. Land mass is 1.4 square miles, with a population of about 4k-5k. What they do in inner city Philly or any Philly suburb or anywhere else in the Archdiocese isn't really relevant to the situation.

[Ben E Lou]

Since the others aren't in question (at least as far as we know) it seems to be fairly specific. But let's consider the source of the 450 figure, an employee of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That's territory that covers nearly 300 parishes and roughly 1.5 million parishioners.

The statute in question concerns Chester Township, PA. Land mass is 1.4 square miles, with a population of about 4k-5k. What they do in inner city Philly or any Philly suburb or anywhere else in the Archdiocese isn't really relevant to the situation.Heh..ok...I didn't realize how small the municipality is. I'm going to offer three guesses then:

1. Something else she did at some point pissed off one of her neighbors, and this is their revenge.
2. Someone on the council is trying to throw their weight around.
3. Both. ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

1. Something else she did at some point pissed off one of her neighbors, and this is their revenge.

That's really where you & I differ ... probably based on personal experiences as much (or moreso) than anything.

She wouldn't have to do anything more than she's done -- gather a couple of dozen kids at her house everyday -- to have me pissed off beyond belief. I'd never consider living in a neighborhood where that's even remotely acceptable behavior, and it doesn't seem like a stretch to think there's going to be a fair number of people in that neighborhood who feel the same way.

[Autumn]

Pumpy?

No women only.

One of those cases where punctuation really matters.

[flounder]

Here (http://www.abc15.com//dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/valley-woman-told-she-could-not-hand-out-free-bottled-water-in-summer-heat)'s another scofflaw making a mockery of our way of life.


Dana Crow-Smith said a City of Phoenix worker came up to her during the First Friday festival in downtown Phoenix last month and told her she was violating city code by handing out free water because she did not have a permit.

Crow-Smith and a group of others were there exercising their Christian beliefs by engaging people to talk about religion if they wanted.

The group brought several cases of bottled water to give away in the 112-degree heat, but said a Neighborhood Preservation Inspector told the group they had to stop handing out the water or would be cited.

[JediKooter]

Something about this: "Neighborhood Preservation Inspector" doesn't sit well with me. I can't quite put my finger on it though other than it sounds like the career someone with personality of say, the BTK serial murderer guy would have.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here (http://www.abc15.com//dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/valley-woman-told-she-could-not-hand-out-free-bottled-water-in-summer-heat)'s another scofflaw making a mockery of our way of life.

I don't really have problem with the action taken here either ... as long as there actually is an applicable code that was being enforced (the article was kinda vague about that part).

Otherwise, the guys from Pepsi, Coke, Snapple, and Budweiser can all hand out free water bottles in return for some nice p.r. and enjoy their right to free speech by engaging people to talk about their products if they want.

And in the process of handing out the free water, they can devalue what appears to be one of the primary funding sources for the festival: food vendors, for whom drink sales are often the highest profit margin item.