Sometimes those little things tacked on at the end of a story are more interesting than the things that make it to the top of the page. Such was the case last Tuesday night when I was writing my usual city council wrap-up story. Buried by the drama of the much-anticipated westside annexation battle at last week’s city council meeting was the fact that council unanimously passed the first reading of an ordinance banning panhandling in certain areas in the city.
The law, which requires another reading in order to take effect, would ban panhandling within 6 feet of any public building, and would ban it completely in Morgan Square. The ordinance also bans panhandling within 15 feet of an ATM, public toilet, bus station, bus stop, taxi stand, parking lot pay box, or pay phone. Panhandling would also be banned at night, in city-owned parking garages, and from a driver or passenger in a vehicle. The ordinance also bans “aggressive panhandling.” Anyone convicted under the new ordinance could face a fine up to $500 or 30 days in jail.
Once I took the time to put together all those restrictions in some attempt to get a handle on the big picture this proposed law is trying to paint, I came to a couple of conclusions. First, this ordinance will effectively ban panhandling from any area in the city with an appreciable amount of foot traffic. Second, the distances and details are vague enough to allow city police officers to enforce this new law pretty much any way they see fit.
The proposed law is as convoluted as it is because a simple blanket ban on panhandling wouldn’t likely stand up to a First Amendment challenge if a lawsuit were to be brought, so a way had to be found to accomplish most of the same things as an outright ban while still making sure that the law can pass the constitutional sniff-test.
Still, why should anybody care that the City of Spartanburg seems to be intent on banning panhandling? People have a right to not be hassled by some homeless guy asking for money when they’re walking into Wild Wing’s to grab some wings and drink a couple of beers, don’t they?
The short answer to that one is, no. People do not have a right to not be hassled. People have a right not to be threatened or physically intimidated, but that part of the issue seems to be quite nicely addressed by the part of the proposed law that bans “aggressive panhandling.”
What this ordinance is actually about is shoving the parts of society that we’d all rather not think about under a rug somewhere, conveniently out of sight and out of mind. The city’s leaders, in their continuing effort to revitalize downtown, don’t want the people they’re trying to lure downtown to be scared off by the possibility that some disheveled looking man might ask for some spare change. That desire to hide the city’s most shameful parts from the view of downtown visitors is completely understandable from a certain point of view.
Nobody wants their dirty laundry out on display when company comes over to the house.
Being panhandled is always an uncomfortable experience, and living near downtown in a neighborhood surrounded by high-poverty areas for the last two-plus years means that I’ve gotten more than my fair share of it. We’ve had people knock on our door asking for money on many occasions, and at least once a month or so I’ll get it from somebody while I’m out walking through the neighborhood or around downtown.
Admittedly, sometimes it can be frustrating running across someone who just doesn’t quite seem to know how to take no for an answer. Still, I know from my experience here as well as from every other city I’ve ever been to that it’s never wise to give money to the panhandlers I encounter. Sad as it is to think about, setting that precedent with someone can only lead to more of the same. There are some concrete ways to help fight poverty and homelessness in our community, but giving money to panhandlers isn’t one of them.
Even though all that’s true, these proposed restrictions on panhandling are ultimately nothing but an attempt by the city to criminalize homelessness in the downtown area.
The difference between me and those who support this ordinance is simple: I don’t expect my city to be as squeaky-clean as Main Street Disney. Cities—the best of them anyway—always feel most real when the mix of socio-economic class is palpable in the air. The image of the suit walking past the homeless guy holding a sign asking for money is as iconic as the Statue of Liberty in America, and though I’m sure the suit would rather not have to bother with seeing it, the truth is that the city’s streets belong to the homeless every bit as much as they do to the titans of the town.
Spartanburg is a city of deep class division, though nobody ever seems to want to talk about it.
It’s a no-brainer that not all panhandlers are homeless, and not for a minute would I think of painting the average panhandler as some sort of modern day Tom Joad, but criminalizing panhandling won’t do anything but make it more comfortable for the rest of us to walk down Main Street secure in the knowledge that we won’t run into anyone who reminds us of things we’d rather not think about.
This ordinance does nothing to address the causes of panhandling. It only seeks to hide it from us so that we can shop and eat in peace. Personally, I don’t think we’ve earned the right as a society or as a city to deserve to feel that comfortable.
Christopher George
Ok now I understand your tweeted statement yesterday. I think you are right on target with this Chris. The poor, the homeless, the folks who feel hopeless are very much among us. To some, the only way they get through the next day is through the few dollars they make begging. Sure for some they use that dollar or two to get drugs or alcohol, but not all. For some they hope to make enough to buy something from the dollar menu at Burger King. That will be their meal for the day.
If we truly want to help the panhandlers, then we need to help those who are equipped to provide, food, shelter, counseling and hope. They too are all around us, working diligently trying to help every person that walks through their doors on minuscule budgets while the number of people in need who cross their door grows.
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.
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.
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.
which reminds me, we can always use a few dollars for The Spark. Feel free to donate.
Nice!
Wow. Nice one, Scrooge.
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.
Thanks Sylvie and gb!
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.
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.
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.
Who decides which cause is worthy?
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.
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.
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.