Ongoing Panhandling Discussion
Most readers here have no doubt at least heard of the latest panhandling proposal that passed the city council 12-3 this Monday.
If not, here’s a brief summary:
The ordinance, approved 12-3 Monday, makes it illegal to ask strangers for food or money near downtown museums and the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. The measure was pushed by business owners who say the area is awash in aggressive beggars, but it got spirited opposition from civil rights groups and advocates for the poor.
There are obviously multiple issues at play here…
- Will the ban accomplish its goal? Of course, metropolitan city councils aren’t necessarily known for the efficacy of their policies, and disregarding moral and constitutional concerns, the question stands: Can a ban on panhandling actually revive the affected areas, and improve the experience for tourists and ITPers? And, of course, since it’s pretty obvious that the goal isn’t actually to target the problem (poverty), is it even possible to combat this scourge by only attacking the symptom (panhandling)?
- Is such a ban constitutional? Is it right? I encountered some good discussion of these questions over at Plastic. If panhandling can be defined as commercial speech, a designation that some argue it deserves, it doesn’t have the same protections as most speech. Likewise, if the federal government can pass laws against calling random people at home to ask them for money, a panhandling ban accomplishes the same thing on the street, with the added bonus of improving the “experience” thereon.
- If not this, what? It’s safe to say there is a panhandling problem in certain areas of Atlanta. Whatever cost is associated with enforcing this new law could, like any other expenditure in a cash-strapped city, go to a thousand other uses. If it’s in the city’s interest to keep panhandling to a minimum or to eliminate it, and you disagree with this law, what is the solution? In Orlando, a permit is technically required to panhandle or beg in the city (I can imagine several scenarios for enforcing this, all of them ridiculous and arcane). The result? A mere ~300 people have actually registered as licensed beggars. Spend the money on shelters instead? Panhandlers and the homeless are not necessarily the same people. As well, many don’t trust the government, either through past experience or mental illness.
I’ll elaborate more if we start a heated debate, but my position is that panhandling would immediately cease to be a problem for those against it if they didn’t give panhandlers any money. If you give panhandlers money, it’s clear you don’t have a problem with their existence and their behavior. If you do have such a problem, it’s easy enough to “vote with your dollars”. A miserly area keeps panhandlers away by nature.
August 17th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
How would you propose to keep an area miserly? How would you ensure that only misers inhabit an area?
If I’m a miser, it affects me when others occupying the same space are not misers — there’s an externality of sorts at play here. It’s not as though if I choose to be a miser, I’m going to chase away panhandlers — other people will choose not to be misers and I will still be bothered by panhandlers.
The situation affects the place and the people who occupy that place, whether they are misers or not. The “voting with your dollars” idea is wishful thinking.
August 17th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
Seperation of the “Have” and “Have Nots” is a widening gap. The “Haves” will not tolerate the begging!
Will this really help? I think “not” as now the panhandlers will just move and stop you at red lights on the way to the sites.
If you are hungry you will find a way to get feed. We are for sell in one or another. Everyone begs… To be loved, feed, have a home, and a job.
August 18th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
Most people begging for money are not “hungry.” They are looking for someone else to pay for their drugs or alcohol.
I don’t give money to panhandlers, and I am in favor of being aggressive in enforcing a panhandling ban.
August 18th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Shock! Scandal! I actually agree with you (for the most part) on this, Garrett!
August 28th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
The same thing will happen as happened with the “urban camping laws.” The panhandlers will move east, and those of us who live east of downtown will deal with them daily rather than the tourists having to be inconvenienced by them.
What irks me is that referral to a social service organization is the response to the SECOND offense. Shouldn’t that be the response to EVERY offense? Wouldn’t that actually accomplish more, getting people help before they’re one step away from being arrested? Once you arrest someone, they essentially have to start over when they get out, meaning they’re even worse off than they were before they got arrested in the first place.
And Joseph G. - that may be true of some people asking for money, but the way to get around that is to offer them food instead of cash. If they are hungry, they’ll take it. If they’re not hungry? Good riddance. I usually carry around a few fruit & cereal bars for that purpose. I think if more people did that rather than handing out cash, we might have fewer aggressive panhandlers. After all, people adopt behaviors because they get what they want from those behaviors. Take away the reward, and the behavior will eventually stop.