Proposal would ban panhandling on sidewalks
Published: January 14, 2009
Updated: January 14, 2009
The ACLU of Virginia begs to differ with Richmond leaders who want to ban panhandlers on city sidewalks and curbs from approaching vehicles for handouts.
Richmond has had an ordinance since 1977 that prohibits soliciting from median strips, but a proposal being considered today by Richmond City Council's public safety committee would extend that ban to all areas in a street's right of way. People convicted of the misdemeanor offense could be fined $250.
The street's right of way would include public sidewalks, which are a traditionally protected public forum, said Kent Willis, executive director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The First Amendment clearly protects your right to stand on a public sidewalk and express your views, whether that is to make a political statement or to solicit donations from passers-by," Willis said. "It is still protected by the Constitution."
The ACLU said it sent a letter and legal memo yesterday to the public safety committee asking that the proposed ban be dropped. The organization said it would offer legal representation to panhandlers affected by the ordinance, if it is adopted.
In August, Henrico County leaders passed an ordinance that prohibits people from standing in highways to solicit contributions, distribute handbills or sell merchandise to drivers or passengers in vehicles. The measure defines "highway" as the entire width of a road or street including the shoulder and the median.
Executives with the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which employed people to sell Sunday newspapers from median strips in the county, objected to the Henrico ordinance. A Henrico jury on Friday found Robert S. Reynolds, a homeless man, guilty of violating the ordinance on two occasions.
Willis said his organization does not have an objection to the Henrico ordinance because it explicitly prohibits people from standing in the road and appears to be in the interest of public safety.
Richmond City Councilman E. Martin Jewell, who opposes the proposed city ordinance, said it could exacerbate a larger social problem.
"We're in a recession. God forbid, any of us can find ourselves in that position tomorrow," Jewell said. "By and large, most of these people you see out there need that money and have no other way of getting any money.
"Council should not feed into the prejudices associated with barring folks asking for money, which is as anti-poor as you can get," he said. "What we ought to be doing is using this energy to find a solution to the problem of poverty in this city."
Councilman Bruce W. Tyler disagreed, saying that soliciting in the streets is a public safety hazard. He said he has heard from people who have been frightened by panhandlers approaching their cars.
"That is not how we want people making a living in our city. We want them doing something constructive," Tyler said. "There are enough organizations that deal with individuals who are in need of assistance in the city of Richmond. I think we need to figure out a way to get folks connected and get them out of the street."
Richmond's public safety committee is scheduled to discuss and make a recommendation on the panhandling ordinance at its meeting today at 5 p.m. in council chambers. The City Council is scheduled to consider it on Jan. 26.
Hanover and Ashland have requested legislation in the General Assembly that will allow them to have a law against soliciting on highways.
Contact Melodie N. Martin at (804) 649-6290 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I agree with “citycynic.“ The people panhandling are a danger to themselves and to others when they stand on the median or sidewalk next to traffic. They also cause accidents, as well. If we could get EVERYONE to stop giving to them, then they would not panhandle, but as long as there is some bleeding heart giving change, it will continue. Don’t think I’m heartless, quite the contrary. I firmly believe these people have NO desire to be taken into shelters; they have to conform to their rules and regs. That’s their choice. Otherwise, there is CARITAS and various homeless shelters who would be more than happy to take them in. Channel 6 interviewed one back in the summer when Henrico passed an ordinance prohibiting panhandling. He admitted to preferring to beg for money rather than working because he got to keep all of it—it was pure profit. So, don’t feel sorry for them, they’re doing it by choice. If you’ll note, most of them are smoking and say they want money for food, but in reality all they want is money for booze and more cigarettes. ACLU please spare me 1st ammendement rights violations here. I have no problem with giving them food, but NO booze or cigarettes or money for drugs.
I always gave Robert S. Reynolds money when I saw him I hope he is alright. Richmond is a cruel place.
This not about free speech - it is about safety. I drive Belvidere daily on my way home from work and have had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a car in front of me who stopped to give someone money; I’ve had people walk OFF of the sidewalk and tap on my window. I’ve seen pandhandlers with dogs allow them to step out into traffic; and the latest - a pandhandler in a wheelchair whizzed off the sidewalk and in front of a car almost causing an accident. These are not isolated incidents, either. The Daily Planet is two blocks away but these people beg for money to buy dope and booze and stay on the streets because shelters will not allow them to stay if they are drunk or high. Times are tough but everyone of these pandhandlers has chosen to beg for money over going to a shelter so they can stay high. This legislation is long overdue.
Back to panhandling. When Carytown had people who played music, did art, and other street entertainment, the police chased them off.
Why? The panhandlers came back, and made the place miserable where you couldn’t walk three blocks without someone asking for change.
Once more, if you LIVE in the neighborhood(And not everyone living there is loaded), you see these “panhandlers” occassionally getting into BETTER vehicles than most of the general public, and drive off.
One lived in a nice house off Roseneath. Let’s just face it, there are those who may be on hard times, But most are either con men, or addicts with no desire to get help.
Daily Planet does good work, if they wanted help? They could get help.
Lets get the Governator to tax them to fund the stimulus program. It is our civil right to do so.
Thanks to those who gave me some information like I wanted. I read quite a bit of it (not all). I see some good things, but I still have no use for the ACLU.
Content of the first amendment is as follows:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.“
Larry- No where does it say it “only applies when ‘one could question & criticize the government…‘“ to quote you. It says the government of the USA cannot make any law that prevents you from practicing religion (any you want), speaking, printing, and assembling. I’m sure your glad right now you have that right because you are able to speak freely here today on the site of a news publication. By the way, pick a side already, you flip flop on your views worse than Sarah Palin.
L. Johnson and Koolaid- wanna go to Starbucks, talk about all this some more, make fun of Larry, all while exercising our freedom of speech? I could use some caffeine!
Rayzor… read for yourself http://aclu.procon.org/
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur59.htm
“1990 Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health The Court’s first “right-to-die” case, in which the ACLU represented the family of a woman who had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than seven
years. Although the Court did not go as far as the ACLU urged, it did recognize living wills as clear and convincing evidence of a patient’s wishes.“
“1993 J.E.B. v. T.B. In this women’s rights victory, the Court held that
a prosecutor could not use peremptory challenges to disqualify potential
jurors based on their gender.“
The Voting Rights Act. Kind of a big one… allowed for anyone, no matter gender, race, ethnicity, etc to vote in this country. I’m guessing your a white man who won’t find that to be so significant because your kind were never banned from voting. As a woman I’m damn glad the ACLU, NAACP, and everyone else took a stand and got me the right to vote just like you! I’d say that’s a pretty darn big accomplishment and I think what happened on Nov 4th is beyond evident!
Hey Rayzor, here are two examples. If I wasn’t at work I’d fill this page up with case names and friend of the court briefs! Keep running around town like your rights are written in stone. They can be taken from you with the stroke of a pen!
1) Brown v. Board of Education
2) Loving v. Virginia
“Everyone hates the ACLU, until their civil liberties are violated.“
Please…can anyone supporting the ACLU give us an example in which that organization has done something productive? ACLU supporters blather on about civil rights and what a wonderful job the ACLU is doing…so give us an example. A pertinent, viable example…not some nonsense like we’re seeing here.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement