The Pitt News - City to vote on panhandling bill The proposed extensions include expanding the definition of panhandling to incorporate all types of solicitation, including religious groups and community service organizations that ask for money. The new bill also lists stricter regulations on when and where individuals are allowed to panhandle.
Downtown's problems are not rooted with some homeless folks.
Downtown's problem is that there are only homeless folks there. Where are all the other people? Where are the everyday hustle bustle folks?
They left when freedom departed.
People vote with their feet!
Posts
1 comment:
City to vote on panhandling bill
State of the Streets
By ANGELA HAYES
Staff Writer for the Pitt News
October 14, 2005
City Council postponed voting on a bill Wednesday that would extend restrictions and create new limitations on panhandling in Pittsburgh.
The new bill, which the Council will consider next Wednesday, would revise a current ordinance that applies only to “aggressive methods of panhandling.”
The proposed extensions include expanding the definition of panhandling to incorporate all types of solicitation, including religious groups and community service organizations that ask for money. The new bill also lists stricter regulations on when and where individuals are allowed to panhandle.
Critics of the bill said that it imposes too many limits on citizens’ rights.
Barb Feige, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Pittsburgh, said that the ACLU expressed its concern to City Council about the way the ordinance was written.
In particular, Feige pointed to the fact that the bill puts time restrictions on when panhandling is permitted (between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. during daylight saving time and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. during standard time).
“There is no ‘Cinderella Clause’ in the First Amendment,” she said. “Your free speech rights don’t turn into a pumpkin when the clock strikes a certain time.”
Feige said that while she understands the Council’s reasons for imposing a time limit to panhandling — lessening exposure to the nighttime crowds — she still thinks it’s wrong.
She said that the ACLU thought enforcing the existing ordinance was a “fine way” to solve the problem of aggressive panhandling.
A representative of one council member said that they are trying to find a balance with the new bill.
“We support a bill that respects people’s first amendment rights,” said Dan Gillman, a representative of Councilman Bill Peduto.
He said that the Council plans to make even more changes to the language of the proposed bill.
“Homelessness is not a threat to the community’s safety, but aggressive solicitation is,” Gillman said.
The bill, as it stands now, proposes placing specific limitations on panhandling:
# No panhandling within 50 feet of a sidewalk cafe or outside dining establishment.
# No panhandling within 25 feet of a line of people waiting to purchase tickets or gain admission to movie theaters and clubs.
# No panhandling within 25 feet of an ATM (up from 10 feet in the old ordinance).
# No panhandling within 10 feet of a food vendor or bus stop.
Pitt Police Officer Ronald Bennett said that he agreed with the reformation of the original law to govern aggressive panhandling.
He said that the Pitt Police try to educate students, faculty and employees in Oakland about other options to deal with people on the street who ask them for money — like offering to buy them lunch or a soda.
“As long as people continue to give them money, they will continue to keep doing what they are doing,” Bennett said.
The new bill, while stricter in its limitations, is actually more lenient in its punishments.
The original ordinance stated that imprisonment was the punishment for violation of the law. By contrast the new the bill gives first-time violators a $25 fine.
In the occurrence of a second offense, panhandlers can receive a citation that would not exceed $50 within a 12-month period.
Bennett said that there is definitely a line that can be crossed between panhandling and aggressive panhandling. He said that there is no law against individuals opening the door for someone.
“It is just a courtesy,” Bennett said. “The only time it becomes a problem is when it’s aggressive and people feel threatened.”
The new bill states that there are numerous forms of solicitation that are not threatening or aggressive — including vocal requests for a donation; carrying or displaying a sign requesting money; shaking or jingling a cup of change or ringing a bell.
The bill also lists “busking,” playing an instrument or singing, under the section that lists legal forms of panhandling.
Feige said that it is important for people to recognize the difference between panhandlers and the homeless.
“Not all homeless people are panhandlers and not all panhandlers are homeless,” she said. “It’s unfortunate that people have to be on the street asking for money, whether it is their choice or they have been reduced to it.”
Post a Comment