Comments on: Flying Oskar: Sweeping Spartanburg’s Panhandlers Under The Rug

By: R Williams

R Williams — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:21:27 +0000

I personally have little to no sympathy for the homeless, bums in general, or anyone that wants to stop me outside the door of my extremely important shopping mission and ask me to donate to their cause (except for Upstate Pride, of course. Man, I love giving money to those guys. It makes my whole week better, and if you want to make your week better, you should donate to some money to Upstate Pride, too! That, and the “Rebecca Williams is Broke and Needs to Pay off her Student Loans and Bar Tab Foundation”). That being said, I completely understand the desire to pass this law, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable. Aside from the fact that I actually tend to find most pandhandlers extremely entertaining when I do bother to talk to them, the Constitution indeed does not protect us from awkward moments. What bothers me the most is that if I get off work in my corporate get up, find my cell phone dead, and need to bum some change for a pay phone, that law will never be enforced to get me out of people’s comfort zones. But if someone dressed in dirty track pants and a tattered BDU jacket asks for some change, he risks 30 days in jail. By all means, if someone gets aggressive or makes you feel physically threatened, do something about it. But there’s a seperate law for that. Don’t tell me that anyone doesn’t have the right to ask for some money.

By: Angie

Angie — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:31:47 +0000

Wow. Nice one, Scrooge.

By: Sylvie Galloway

Sylvie Galloway — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:26:16 +0000

I did want to add…

Even though there are such a wide variety of causes out there, one isn’t required to agree with or support all of them or even any of them. That too is our right to accept or reject, support or abstain from support the ideal behind such things.

…I would have said that earlier, but I needed my brain to wake up a bit more. Coffee helps so much with that.

By: Sylvie Galloway

Sylvie Galloway — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:12:00 +0000

the people who think there is a need for that cause. And that cause can be as diverse as people are. There are always needs, desires to help, desires to improve, desires to educate, desires to share. All can be made into causes.

By: camelmike

camelmike — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:38:49 +0000

Who decides which cause is worthy?

By: Christopher George

Christopher George — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:28:12 +0000

Asking for money is asking for money. The cause is irrelevant when we’re talking about questions of law.

I agree that threatening or physically intimidating people while panhandling is out of bounds, but this law goes far beyond just banning “aggressive panhandling.” I addressed this in my OP. Maybe you should read up on the law a little.

By: Sylvie Galloway

Sylvie Galloway — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:00:14 +0000

I am a bit curious where in the constitution it states that first amendment rights cease when someone gets aggressive. If that were the case there would be a whole slew of people who are over stepping their constitutional boundaries.

On the plus side, that would mean that those horrible car ads, and trained to be piranhas sales staff would have to scale things back, along with the yelling at each other talking heads on political radio and television.

By: mickey peroney

mickey peroney — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:47:31 +0000

I fail to see any correlation between panhandlers and firefighters collecting money for worthy causes. First amendment rights end when the person gets aggressive. That’s what the new codes address.

By: Christopher George

Christopher George — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:47:29 +0000

Nice!

By: Sylvie Galloway

Sylvie Galloway — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:41:25 +0000

which reminds me, we can always use a few dollars for The Spark. Feel free to donate.

By: camelmike

camelmike — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:27:29 +0000

I cannot stand beggars of any kind.

Some are more offensive than others, but all want your money for “their” cause.

Street bums, bell ringers, grant writers, and all the rest.

By: Christopher George

Christopher George — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:06:08 +0000

Thanks Sylvie and gb!

By: Christopher George

Christopher George — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:03:27 +0000

I know that the city works with agencies who aid the homeless. At no point did I say they didn’t.

As far as those “usual suspects,” I live just a few blocks from downtown. I see quite a few of those “usual suspects” on a fairly regular basis. What right does the city have to ban those “usual suspects” from panhandling as long as they’re not threatening or belligerent? I’ll say it again: nobody has a right to not feel uncomfortable.

Those “usual suspects” have a first amendment right to ask for money, just as the firefighters standing outside Wild Wings with the boot this past weekend asking for money have the same right.

By: gb

gb — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:12:31 +0000

As usual, Christopher, a good insightful job on a difficult issue.
As uncomfortable as is to have “normal” folks exposed to the “underbelly” of society, ultimately it hinges on free speech rights. If this was about stopping evangelicals “panhandling for souls” in public places, or a High School fundraiser going door to door raising money for their school, there would be an uproar if such laws were passed. The bottom line is, we don’t get to pick and choose who we allow to speak (or ask for money in pubic), as much as it might make us uncomfortable.

By: mickey peroney

mickey peroney — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:38:18 +0000

The city works diligently with agencies and organizations who aid those who genuinely NEED assistance. This ordinance addresses the segment who rely on their street wiles to fund their lifestyle. Talk to the cops who patrol the downtown area and they will give you the REAL story of a great majority of the usual suspects they encounter.