Or it's a fun hobby for someone who enjoys cooking?

It sounds pitch-shifted, that's the worst give-away.

Nice thumbnail.

Jesus, fucking hostile much? Thanks for posting a proper news link which this thread was lacking, but I'm not sure you read it thoroughly. "Parks shall not be used for business or social services." Nobody can sell or give away food there, to rich people or to homeless people. No hot dog stands unless they get a letter from the city.

The fact that the mayor amended his statement from "feeding the homeless just enables them" to "you can feed the homeless, but only indoors" belies his real feelings on the matter, but his excuse does have lots of precedent behind it. Cities mandate permits for all kinds of stuff, especially on public land. Not only that, but if you serve the food closer to the kitchen it stays hotter longer which reduces the risk of food poisoning. So, food safety? Technically yes. Not making the occasional exception for charity? Pretty shitty. I wonder what would happen if they asked for a permit.

And "catered food" describes how it was prepared, not how it is served. It is purchased from a business with inspected kitchens and health ratings, not from some person's back room where they leave the chicken out unrefrigerated covered in rat shit. It also usually comes in identical bins like that, whereas a randomized tupperware collection would look more like something privately prepared. It was just an observation which could indicate (or preclude) more food safety issues.

Do church kitchens have health inspections since they are not restaurants? Maybe that's the next thing the mayor can crack down on to keep the homeless hungry so they learn to get a job.

In conclusion, I hate writing follow-ups to internet comments, because now I know there's going to be another round to which I will probably not respond. Don't be offended.

I couldn't even bear to watch the video to listen for the audio, but I think it's likely you are correct. This is yet another context-less internet video which someone has placed in an inflammatory context. Obviously they're not being cited for giving away food. That's not illegal. Everyone's flailing about "LET THEM FEED THE HOMELESS" (including the post title) but if there's a food safety violation going on here, well, it's the job of the police to make sure they don't get a bunch of people sick, especially some homeless folk who probably don't have a good way to get to the ER if they get really bad food poisoning.

A responsible news crew (or anyone interested in providing context) would have followed up with a word from the guys being cited, and with a police spokesperson to get the real story from both sides.

With all of that said, the cynic in me is still here. He says "it can't be that hard to give safe (apparently catered) food away on the street for free, with or without a permit".

Also... it's not legitimate demand since it's based on misunderstandings and/or lies. That's the easy reason. Marketing 101 baby!

Didn't we just have the lifehack in the top sifts? It showed that all you have to do to get a chip bowl is open from the top then start curling/folding in the bottom to push the chips upward until they reach the top. I guess this way is the "non-hack" version.