I'd like to say a few words about the "Feed the Homeless Initiative," Proposition 95.
I couldn't help but get upset when I heard Susan Dey (star of TV's "L.A. Law") speak out in praise of the initiative. It is a shame that she and a good percentage of California voters do not know much about the initiative.
Don't get me wrong, to feed the homeless is a great idea. I'm all for it. But let's read between the lines of this initiative. Who's going to pay to feed the homeless? Someone has to. Proponents say that taxpayers won't have to. Let's feed the homeless, just as long as it doesn't come out of our pockets. The fact is that restaurant and market owners will have to carry a disproportionate burden. The restaurant owners will be fined for each violation that a health inspector notes on an inspection report.
What will happen when an inspector tells the owner of a small restaurant that he will be fined for having a leaky faucet in his restroom? It's a violation. It will also be a set fine if this initiative passes.
Something is definitely wrong here. What are the ramifications? It will make health inspectors law enforcement officers. It will make restaurant and market owners automatic criminals. (Every restaurant and market has violations). Is this fair?
Why should the restaurant and market owners be responsible for feeding the homeless? Why single them out? Why not let everyone pay? Of course no one wants to pay more taxes.
There must be a better way to feed the homeless. Let's think first!
JAMES J. NICHOL