From PolicyMic: In 33 U.S. Cities, It’s Illegal to Do the One Thing That Helps the Homeless Most

For 2306's look at the role local government - as well as 2305's look at federalism - some analysis of the consequences of local policies related to homelessness.

- Click here for the article.

This is also an example of both agenda setting and interest groups - since it is based on a report by an advocacy group which is attempting to highlight the problems caused by cities banning food-sharing by private organizations for the homeless.

The report argues that such laws - as well as others - "criminalize" homelessness.

That said, this also illustrates the concept of an unintended consequence, as well as criminal justice policy. An increasing number of people are concerned about the tendency of government to deal with social problems by criminalizing them, making them a felony.

Are there more effective - and cheaper ways to deal; with these problems?

Here's a bit from the story:  

The news: In case the United States' problem with homelessness wasn't bad enough, a forthcoming National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) report says that 33 U.S. cities now ban or are considering banning the practice of sharing food with homeless people. Four municipalities (Raleigh, N.C.; Myrtle Beach, S.C.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Daytona Beach, Fla.) have recently gone as far as to fine, remove or threaten to throw in jail private groups that work to serve food to the needy instead of letting government-run services do the job.

Why it's happening: The bans are officially instituted to prevent government-run anti-homelessness programs from being diluted. But in practice, many of the same places that are banning food-sharing are the same ones that have criminalized homelessness with harsh and punitive measures. Essentially, they're designed to make being homeless within city limits so unpleasant that the downtrodden have no choice but to leave. Tampa, for example,criminalizes sleeping or storing property in public. Columbia, South Carolina, passed a measure that essentially would have empowered police to ship all homeless people out of town. Detroit PD officers have been accused of illegally taking the homeless and driving them out of the city.

Houston's mayor is featured:

Some city officials, like Houston's Mayor Annise Parker, claim that "making it easier for someone to stay on the streets is not humane" and say that uncoordinated charity efforts "keep them on the street longer, which is what happens when you feed them."

What does "Lawfully Detained" Mean?

The Texas Tribune has a story today on what may be unintended consequences of the "sanctuary cities" legislation: the deportation of children brought to the country illegally by their parents, but are now excelling in school. If they are lawfully detained, they may be asked about their immigration status, but what exactly does that phrase mean? It's not just about being arrested, but can relate to almost any interaction one might have with a police officer.

There are concerns the law might not be used to simply focus on people deemed dangerous, but those that Texas might wish to retain. Supporters of the legislation are attempting to ensure the language will not lead to its arbitrary and capricious use.

In both 2301 and 2302 we tough on interpretation of law and constitutional language. Here's an example.

Texas Doctors are Dropping out of Medicare

At an alarming rate says the Chron. This is an unintended consequence of a 1997 effort to reduce spending on medial care.

A related story:
- Medicare Pay Cuts Averted, Cobra Extended — Why All the Sad Faces ...

Fees v. Mortage Relief

Recent legislation designed to make it easier for homeowners at risk of defaulting on mortgages to stay in their homes has failed to make an impact because the existing fee structure makes it lucrative for mortgage companies to have loans go delinquent.

From the NYT:

This week, the Obama administration summoned mortgage company executives to Washington to demand they move faster to lower payments for homeowners sliding toward foreclosure. Treasury officials called on the companies to hire and train more people quickly to field applications for relief.

But industry insiders and legal experts say the limited capacity of mortgage companies is not the primary factor impeding the government’s $75 billion program to prevent foreclosures. Instead, it is that many mortgage companies are reluctant to give strapped homeowners a break because the companies collect lucrative fees on delinquent loans.

Even when borrowers stop paying, mortgage companies that service the loans collect fees out of the proceeds when homes are ultimately sold in foreclosure. So the longer borrowers remain delinquent, the greater the opportunities for these mortgage companies to extract revenue — fees for insurance, appraisals, title searches and legal services.

Unintended Consequences

Public policy scholars speak of the unintended consequences of public policy, the solution of one problem can create others. The drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 as a way to deal with under aged drunk driving, but may have led to binge drinking on campus.

Here is a story about the occasional fatalities that occur when some try to down 21 shots to commemorate their 21st birthday.

Is this a product of a drinking age that is too high? When I was 21, drinking wasn't such a big deal since it hadn't been forbidden fruit for so long. Others point out that by being 18 and drinking in a bar, one is in an environment with far more supervision that exists in a keg party.