when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can¹t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ain-nyc-bans-f
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

And, he probably got the idea from reading
usenet posts?

Amazing, and a sad sort of way. The ideas
that bored, over fed legislators implement.

Now what? Socialized medicine and health
care rationing?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can¹t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ain-nyc-bans-f
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:sY-
:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can¹t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ain-nyc-bans-f
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

Didn't go to read your link. It's just that it is already law or
regulation that you cannot donate prepared foods to a food pantry. Believe
me, I have asked. Without kitchen inspections etc, it won't be allowed.
Too many sanitary and allergy regulations. Sad, but true.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Nov 10, 9:09*am, Han wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:sY-
:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2 s Marcia Kramer..

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...s-again-nyc-ba...
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

Didn't go to read your link. *It's just that it is already law or
regulation that you cannot donate prepared foods to a food pantry. *Believe
me, I have asked. *Without kitchen inspections etc, it won't be allowed..
Too many sanitary and allergy regulations. *Sad, but true.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Which shows what over regulation and having a jerk for a
mayor leads to. I can understand soup kitchens and
such not accepting food from anyone who walks in.
But there is no reason they can't
have an approved list of bakeries, restaurants, etc
that could donate food. The bagel place in the story
is a good example. If Dunkin Donuts has excess product,
why should they throw out the same product they were
selling to customers?

This is something everyone should get, but obviously
not Bloomberg and his food police.

The explanation is probably incorrect. For example, City Harvest is a charity that picks up left-over food from restaurants to serve to the homeless. BUT- ONLY food that has not been served- food from the kitchen, not from the dining room.

The synagogue in question probably put the bagels out for their members, and once food has been available to the public it is not then served elsewhere.

" wrote in
:

On Nov 10, 9:09*am, Han wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:sY-
:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city
can t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2 s
Marcia Kramer
.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...s-again-nyc-ba
...
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

Didn't go to read your link. *It's just that it is already law or
regulation that you cannot donate prepared foods to a food pantry.
*Bel
ieve
me, I have asked. *Without kitchen inspections etc, it won't be
allowed
.
Too many sanitary and allergy regulations. *Sad, but true.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Which shows what over regulation and having a jerk for a
mayor leads to. I can understand soup kitchens and
such not accepting food from anyone who walks in.
But there is no reason they can't
have an approved list of bakeries, restaurants, etc
that could donate food. The bagel place in the story
is a good example. If Dunkin Donuts has excess product,
why should they throw out the same product they were
selling to customers?

This is something everyone should get, but obviously
not Bloomberg and his food police.

In New York City there is an organization called City Harvest. Big
operation. They do exactly what you say. I don't know how it is
organized, but my kids in the Boston area volunteer to bring leftover
baked goods from a Panera's to a nursing home about once every 2 weeks.
Others I gather do it on other days. I thought (perhaps mistaken) that
this was about home-prepared food from individual citizens.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:sY-
:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can¹t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ain-nyc-bans-f
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

Didn't go to read your link. It's just that it is already law or
regulation that you cannot donate prepared foods to a food pantry. Believe
me, I have asked. Without kitchen inspections etc, it won't be allowed.
Too many sanitary and allergy regulations. Sad, but true.

The link indicated this was new regulation.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:sY-
:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city
can¹t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s
Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...es-again-nyc-b
ans-f ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

Didn't go to read your link. It's just that it is already law or
regulation that you cannot donate prepared foods to a food pantry.
Believe me, I have asked. Without kitchen inspections etc, it won't
be allowed. Too many sanitary and allergy regulations. Sad, but
true.

The link indicated this was new regulation.

Prima facie it is indeed nonsense. I read it as a new interpretation of
an existing regulation. Indeed the fight against fat and salt is going a
bit far. Nevertheless, it (the donation of leftover bagels etc from a
synagogue) falls really in the same category as that you can't donate the
remnants of your meal from your home. Given the enormous amounts wasted
in homes, that is indeed sort of a sin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:19:47 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can¹t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ain-nyc-bans-f
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

The City of Las Vegas passed an ordinance preventing feeding the
homeless in city parks. Had nothing to do with nutrition, or health.
They just wanted to keep the homeless out of the parks. Volunteers
were even threatened with arrest.

Bloomburg ought to give one of his billions to the homeless programs
in his city...you know, his "fair share", for being a 1%'er.

Bloomberg must be losing it he also wanted that race to go on, even in
the middle of disaster clean up..

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely......

Whenever I hear about stories like this, I can't help thinking there's another reason that makes sense, but we're just not being told what it is.

What I'd expect would make more sense is that the store owners don't want to give food to food banks or homeless shelters because they don't trust their employees. They're concerned that their employees won't put that food out on the shelves for sale until it's "Best Before" date has expired, in which case it just gets donated to a charity. There may be store employees that are actively involved in charities that will do stuff like that to ensure their charity always has a lot of fresh food being thrown it's way.

By requiring the food to be discarded, you avoid the problem of employees manipulating the system to provide food to the charities of their choice at the store owner's expense. But, no store wants to say "We're doing this because we don't trust our employees." So, they come up with some BS about the government not being able to verify the nutritional standards, blah, blah, blah.

On 10 Nov 2012 15:53:06 GMT, Han wrote:


Prima facie it is indeed nonsense. I read it as a new interpretation of
an existing regulation. Indeed the fight against fat and salt is going a
bit far. Nevertheless, it (the donation of leftover bagels etc from a
synagogue) falls really in the same category as that you can't donate the
remnants of your meal from your home. Given the enormous amounts wasted
in homes, that is indeed sort of a sin.


The figure tossed around by the media is 40% of food is wasted. That
seems very high, but I guess some people are nuts. Little goes to
waste in this house. Leftovers make great lunches.

With a little though, you can spend less on food and eat better with
the best ingredients. Just don't waste food.

I can understand some controls are needed to prevent potential food
poisoning, but they make it difficult to help with some regulations.

On Nov 10, 11:27*am, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:19:47 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2 s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...s-again-nyc-ba...
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

The City of Las Vegas passed an ordinance preventing feeding the
homeless in city parks. Had nothing to do with nutrition, or health.
They just wanted to keep the homeless out of the parks. Volunteers
were even threatened with arrest.

Bloomburg ought to give one of his billions to the homeless programs
in his city...you know, his "fair share", for being a 1%'er.

I couldn't stand him before the storm. Between bans on transfats,
salt, soft drink sizes, etc.
And in the days after
the storm, he'd be on the radio and TV far too much, droning
on for 20 minutes, most of what he was saying was of little
importance. Christie by comparison was focused and direct.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:09:59 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Bloomburg ought to give one of his billions to the homeless programs
in his city...you know, his "fair share", for being a 1%'er.

I couldn't stand him before the storm. Between bans on transfats,
salt, soft drink sizes, etc.
And in the days after
the storm, he'd be on the radio and TV far too much, droning
on for 20 minutes, most of what he was saying was of little
importance. Christie by comparison was focused and direct.

Bloomburg also led initiative, Latch On. He wanted hospitals to lock
up baby formula and women to breast feed. He thinks everything is
simple in life. Damn nanny is what he is.

I watched a number a press conferences of Gov. Christie. The man is
on the ball, takes decisive action and a no-bull ****er. He can eat
the lunch of media reporters.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:43:01 -0800, Oren wrote:




I watched a number a press conferences of Gov. Christie. The man is
on the ball, takes decisive action and a no-bull ****er. He can eat
the lunch of media reporters.

I hope we see a lot of him in 2016

On 11/10/2012 8:19 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can¹t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ain-nyc-bans-f
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/


My buddies daughter is a chef in a NYC hotel and we were just talking
about this yesterday. She said the trays of lamb chops, baked goods or
whatever in the kitchen that were prepared for an event that went unused
can no longer be donated to the homeless as they had been doing
previously.

Have to love this quote from the article about those rotten people
helping their fellow humans without guidance from those really smart
people in government:

“If they did in the past they shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t
have accepted it,” Bloomberg said.

On 11/10/2012 9:20 AM, wrote:
On Nov 10, 9:09 am, Han wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:sY-
:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2 s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...s-again-nyc-ba...
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

Didn't go to read your link. It's just that it is already law or
regulation that you cannot donate prepared foods to a food pantry. Believe
me, I have asked. Without kitchen inspections etc, it won't be allowed.
Too many sanitary and allergy regulations. Sad, but true.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Which shows what over regulation and having a jerk for a
mayor leads to. I can understand soup kitchens and
such not accepting food from anyone who walks in.
But there is no reason they can't
have an approved list of bakeries, restaurants, etc
that could donate food. The bagel place in the story
is a good example. If Dunkin Donuts has excess product,
why should they throw out the same product they were
selling to customers?

This is something everyone should get, but obviously
not Bloomberg and his food police.


You just don't get it . We really need those self imagined smartest
people in the world controlling every aspect of our lives. It is really
wrong to help your fellow humans without strict guidance from the
government...

On 11/10/2012 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Nov 10, 11:27 am, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:19:47 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2 s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...s-again-nyc-ba...
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

The City of Las Vegas passed an ordinance preventing feeding the
homeless in city parks. Had nothing to do with nutrition, or health.
They just wanted to keep the homeless out of the parks. Volunteers
were even threatened with arrest.

Bloomburg ought to give one of his billions to the homeless programs
in his city...you know, his "fair share", for being a 1%'er.

I couldn't stand him before the storm. Between bans on transfats,
salt, soft drink sizes, etc.
And in the days after
the storm, he'd be on the radio and TV far too much, droning
on for 20 minutes, most of what he was saying was of little
importance. Christie by comparison was focused and direct.


People deserve what they get from the people they vote for. ^_^

TDD

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:43:01 -0800, Oren wrote:




I watched a number a press conferences of Gov. Christie. The man is
on the ball, takes decisive action and a no-bull ****er. He can eat
the lunch of media reporters.

From his size, I think he probably has (grin)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Restaurants (other than large chains) are not required in NYC to provide nutritional information. If the city is currently no longer allowing restaurants to provide food to shelters it might be an issue of worries over refrigeration, or perhaps just a problem of logistics.

On 11/10/12 2:51 PM, George wrote:

My buddies daughter is a chef in a NYC hotel and we were just talking
about this yesterday. She said the trays of lamb chops, baked goods or
whatever in the kitchen that were prepared for an event that went unused
can no longer be donated to the homeless as they had been doing previously.

Have to love this quote from the article about those rotten people
helping their fellow humans without guidance from those really smart
people in government:

“If they did in the past they shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t
have accepted it,” Bloomberg said.

I take it the rules are written so the hotel can't "sell" the
excess food for a dollar or two as takeout.

On 11/10/2012 7:19 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can¹t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ain-nyc-bans-f
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/


I remember reading about a group of nuns who were going to open a
homeless shelter in NYC in an old building. The powers that be told
the nuns that they would have to install elevators in the old building
at great expense. The nuns responded that they would carry anyone up
the stairs if they were incapable of climbing up themselves. The city
bureaucrat responded by saying something to the effect that "This isn't
Calcutta, we don't carry people up stairs. You will install elevators."
Of course, the nuns cancelled the project because it had just become
prohibitively expensive for their religious order. Don't you love the
way government bureaucrats spit in the faces of the citizenry? O_o

TDD

We don't waive building codes and requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act because a bunch of nuns think they can carry 400 lb people up steps. You could almost make the same argument about ignoring fire codes, with the thought that sleeping indoors is better than outdoors and that outweighs the small chance of perishing in a fire.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
when I suggested that NYC was going to demand nutrition labeling on
their garbage dumpsters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg¹s food police have struck again!
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can¹t
assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2¹s Marcia Kramer.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ain-nyc-bans-f
ood-donations-to-the-homeless/

As a former reporter, I would think you might dig a little deeper. For one
thing, the article itself says of the reason donations are not accepted:
"For the things that we run because of all sorts of safety reasons, we just
have a policy it is my understanding of not taking donations," Bloomberg
said.

"All sorts of safety reasons" like, perhaps, they are concerned that some
moron who had decided the homeless would be better off dead poisons the
donations. The city would be on the hook for massive liability. See
"Craig's List Laborer Killers" if you don't believe people are that low.

http://www.wsny.net/pages/14754253.p...entId=11805617

The article you cited doesn't point to the edict that alleges this is all
about salt. Curious. One would think a responsible reporter would refer
readers to the ban she's writing about. I searched the www.nyc.gov site and
didn't find any such information. Is it possible that a reporter made a
mistake? Funny how some people completely dismiss main stream media until
it agrees with one of their positions. Then it's gospel truth.

The link that alleges to be to the policy: "Told that his administration
recently enacted the policy"

actually goes to discuss the smoking ban, and nothing about donation bans.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/...parks-beaches/

Highly suspect crap. I'll keep an eye on this for a retraction. It's very
odd that the major NYC news outlets have not picked up on this "hot" story
because some of them really hate Bloomberg. Almost all of the "hate
Bloomberg" sites have picked up on the original article from CBSlocal but
nothing on any site I saw referred back to a press release or other official
notification. Just a copy of the original Kramer piece, some with
additional embellishments, none with a link to the actual (alleged)policy.

The link listed in the CBSlocal piece for the phrase: salt, fat and fiber
eaten by the homeless

actually leads to:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/...chool-lunches/

That link talks about school lunches, not donations to the homeless. Nope,
nothing there about the homeless donations.

Maybe it's true, but it has the stink of a lie to it. Nearly every hit on
Google for any number of search terms merely point back to the article you
cited. That's suspicious because no one else seems to have picked up on
this "revelation." Some links in my Google search have already disappeared:

http://infinitynewsnetwork.com/2012/...-the-homeless/

The above link returns a "not found" error along with other search URLs
returned by Google. Which leads me to believe even more that it's BS. Why
don't you try to locate the ban itself instead of repeating something that
has the obvious stench of mendacity?

I did find this site and wonder if CBSLocal got duped like the saps that
quoted the Onion:

NYC Mayor Bans Food Donations to Homeless
Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 9 Nov 2012 | John Semmens

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2958029/posts

Ruh-Roh. It's looking like a satirical fraud from here.

From journalist to rumormonger, Kurt. My how the mighty have fallen. Where
was it you went to journalism school? You might be eligible for a tuition
refund. You wasn't teached proper about fact-checking. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:59:29 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

We don't waive building codes and requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act because a bunch of nuns think they can carry 400 lb people up steps.
You could almost make the same argument about ignoring fire codes, with the thought that sleeping indoors
is better than outdoors and that outweighs the small chance of perishing in a fire.

No, you cannot make the same argument. Ignoring a fire code puts
people at risk. Not installing elevators still allows the nuns to
help hundreds of people even if a few cannot partake of the upstairs
tables. I'm sure they would be given a platter if they showed up.

The ADA is generally a good idea, but it is far from perfect and some
exceptions should be allowed. If you can save the life of a drowning
person in the river across the street, would you ignore them because
you cannot J walk to get to them? At times the rules must be ignored.

So we decide what is a noble cause and what isn't? And then every noble cause skips following all these rules, even though they would have if required, because one of them might not?

And what about subsequent users of the building? Who don't get the benefit of the elevator that would've been required because the nuns spent a half-million on other renovations? This wasn't a case of "in order to use the building spend money" but rather "you're already spending tons of money, here's a requirement."

The drowning victim is a flawed analogy as well.

On 11/10/2012 7:59 PM, wrote:
We don't waive building codes and requirements under the Americans
with Disabilities Act because a bunch of nuns think they can carry
400 lb people up steps. You could almost make the same argument about
ignoring fire codes, with the thought that sleeping indoors is better
than outdoors and that outweighs the small chance of perishing in a
fire.


Typical P.L.L.C.F. attitude and dementia, believing that there are a
great number of 400lb homeless people living on the streets of NYC.
How whacked out is that for a Politically Correct excuse to prohibit
altruistic activities. ^_^

TDD

I don't know that too many nuns could carry a typical 180 lb person up a couple of flights of stairs, and when they try and drop the person...

When you exceed the threshold dollar amount (or however it works) for retro-fitting, you have to come up to code. We don't pick and choose who doesn't have to because some buildings' use is more altruistic than some other use.. Otherwise you start drawing lines- is a private school altruistic? What if it's half scholarship students? Handicapped students? How about a restaurant that's a private enterprise but runs a cooking school for underprivileged kids? How about a church? A mosque? Scientologists? A health food store? A medical office? A company that melts down confiscated guns to manufacture artificial limbs for veterans?

Or it could be a display of power. Did you ever read the book 1984, by
George Orwell? I think there are some parallels.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
Restaurants (other than large chains) are not required in NYC to provide
nutritional information. If the city is currently no longer allowing
restaurants to provide food to shelters it might be an issue of worries over
refrigeration, or perhaps just a problem of logistics.

On 11/10/2012 10:30 PM, wrote:
I don't know that too many nuns could carry a typical 180 lb person
up a couple of flights of stairs, and when they try and drop the
person...

When you exceed the threshold dollar amount (or however it works) for
retro-fitting, you have to come up to code. We don't pick and choose
who doesn't have to because some buildings' use is more altruistic
than some other use. Otherwise you start drawing lines- is a private
school altruistic? What if it's half scholarship students?
Handicapped students? How about a restaurant that's a private
enterprise but runs a cooking school for underprivileged kids? How
about a church? A mosque? Scientologists? A health food store? A
medical office? A company that melts down confiscated guns to
manufacture artificial limbs for veterans?


Why don't you flog the subject to death by continuing to harp on it.
What a demented whack job you are. O_o

TDD

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:25:08 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

So we decide what is a noble cause and what isn't? And then every noble cause skips following all these rules, even though they would have if required, because one of them might not?

IMO, the government should not be telling private users what to do
anyway. There are other ways of serving the needs of the people so
that is not a restriction or turning people away. The law needs
revision.



And what about subsequent users of the building? Who don't get the benefit of the elevator that would've been required because the nuns spent a half-million on other renovations?
This wasn't a case of "in order to use the building spend money" but rather "you're already spending tons of money, here's a requirement."


Who cares about subsequent users? So if you are spending a million,
what is another million? I'm sure they had a budget and a limit. Once
the limit is reached you stop the project. The city just priced them
out of the neighborhood.





The drowning victim is a flawed analogy as well.
Why? We must obey all laws as you say.

On 11/10/2012 7:28 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 11/10/12 2:51 PM, George wrote:

My buddies daughter is a chef in a NYC hotel and we were just talking
about this yesterday. She said the trays of lamb chops, baked goods or
whatever in the kitchen that were prepared for an event that went unused
can no longer be donated to the homeless as they had been doing
previously.

Have to love this quote from the article about those rotten people
helping their fellow humans without guidance from those really smart
people in government:

“If they did in the past they shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t
have accepted it,” Bloomberg said.

I take it the rules are written so the hotel can't "sell" the
excess food for a dollar or two as takeout.

Don't know. But if I imagined myself to be smarter than everyone and
wanted to insure that only the government could directly help less
fortunate people I would include language that would disallow such
"sidestepping"...