Bloomberg Donations Ban and Perverse Consequences

NOVEMBER 09, 2012

NYC's nanny-in-chief, Michael Bloomberg, just came out with his most recent decree: Banning food donations to homeless shelters. [EDIT: This ban was actually enacted in March. I was going off of the news story I read Friday morning, which has since been edited and corrected.]

What does it say about a person's character when he stops people from donating to shelters that want to help feed the hungry and homeless--people who have been especially hard-hit since the double whammy of Sandy and the nor'easter?

Maybe Bloomberg has good intentions. His staff can't regulate the amount of salt, fat, and fiber in the food being donated and distributed to those in need. How can the government in NYC be sure that the homeless are getting proper nutrition if food gifts aren't regulated?

The problem with Bloomberg's good intentions is that he seems to ignores the unseen effects. Here are just a few likely consequences of this ban:

  • The effects of hunger are more immediately harmful to needy individuals than their consuming sodium, fat, or whatever. Bloomberg assumes that hungry people prefer food with "healthy" levels of salt, fat, and fiber to no food at all. If this assumption is wrong (and I have a hunch that it is), he is needlessly depriving people of food.
  • Giving Bloomberg's food regulation Gestapo the benefit of the doubt, what if food contamination is actually a larger problem than sodium and fat? If this is the case, driving donation centers underground would take them out of the scope of the regulators who are purported to ensure food is free of contamination.
  • Bans like this are likely to deter the philanthropic sector and grow the regulatory-social-work-industrial complex of New York. The last thing we need in America after natural disasters is more crowdout of civil society.
  • Bans like these needlessly build in a cultural chauvinism about homeless people. Basically, Bloomberg is saying “homeless people can’t make their own dietary choices, but the would-be benefactors can.” This is crude paternalism.
  • Food will be wasted and people who want to donate food to the hungry might incur unnecessary costs in disposing of it.

We don't need Michael Bloomberg to tell generous people what they can and can't do to help. Nor do we need Bloomberg to protect homeless people from themselves, particularly as many are homeless due to problems that are way bigger than the temporary effects of salts, sodas and transfats.

We need to have the freedom to do what our conscience tells us is right. If people in New York City want to give hot soup and bagels to the hungry, it is unconscionable to stop them. Let the hungry decide for themselves whether it is better to have non-state-approved nutrition levels or no food at all. In the spirit of Leonard Read, let them do "anything that's peaceful."

What might be some other perverse effects of this donation ban? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


July/August 2014

The United States' corporate tax burden is the highest in the world, but innovators will always find a way to duck away from Uncle Sam's reach. Doug Bandow explains how those with the means are renouncing their citizenship in increasing numbers, while J. Dayne Girard describes the innovative use of freeports to shield wealth from the myriad taxes and duties imposed on it as it moves around the world. Of course the politicians brand all of these people unpatriotic, hoping you won't think too hard about the difference between the usual crony-capitalist suspects and the global creative elite that have done so much to improve our lives. In a special tech section, Joseph Diedrich, Thomas Bogle, and Matthew McCaffrey look at various ways these innovators add value to our lives--even in ways they probably never expected.
Download Free PDF