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
Larry Lanberg,
I post anonymously for various reasons, but it has nothing to do with free speech. It’s a privacy concern on my part. Point is, we all have the right to post on here with our full name, address, phone number, etc. but almost no one does that. I’m not afraid of being arrested due to my posts, if that’s what you’re getting at. In China maybe.
You say that the people on the street are ‘con artists’ aggravating people and shouldn’t be allowed there. So basically you’re saying that anyone who is deemed a ‘con artist’ and aggravating by a group of people without proof should be deemed such and arrested or kicked off the street? Well, hmmm… I think that those people ringing bells for the Salvation Army are aggravating, so maybe I’ll call the cops next time I see one.
“The amendment is fairly vague, but it basically means ‘the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation’.“
Now you know that isn’t true—no limitations. If you really believe what you say, then why are you posting anonymously???
I don’t believe that the rights of all are so contingent on the ‘right’ of con artists to aggravate people. I don’t buy it. You might be right…but I just don’t buy it.
I can’t stand the ACLU’s liberal stances like many, and neither can I stand seeing these people begging for money.
However, no matter how annoying they are, the panhandlers have the right to be there. The law keeping them out of the median strip is for safety reasons.
If the panhandlers can’t be on the sidewalk, then how about the hot dog vendors? Why not tell people that they can only be on the sidewalk if they’re walking to work? Or how about only if you make more than $50,000 a year? See my point? Where does it end?
The ACLU is a joke in most cases, but I surprisingly agree with them on this issue.
As far as the panhandlers being con artists - Does it really matter? As long as you aren’t giving them money, that’s fine. If everyone stopped giving them money, they wouldn’t be there - that’s the real problem. People need to stop giving handouts to lazy bums - eroding first amendment rights isn’t the solution. Most people giving the panhandlers money are ignorant to the fact that they are mostly potheads and alcoholics.
I’ve never had a panhandler ‘harass’ me before. Unless you call walking past my car with a sign while I’m at a stoplight harassment. If they were knocking on my window yelling profanities, that would be different.
In addition, I wholeheartedly disagree with “L. Johnson” that ‘the ACLU’s vigorous defense of the First Amendment is the reason you can run your mouth on this post’. There are plenty of free speech groups in China similar to the ACLU, but those groups are shutout due to no first amendment in China.
I also disagree with “Larry Lanberg” - free speech does not only pertain to the government. The amendment is fairly vague, but it basically means ‘the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation’.
Hey Crimediver, your comment sounds patriotic, but now wholely true. I’m not sure what the armed forces has to due with the Bill of Rights, unless you’re talking about the militiamen of the revolutionary war. Also, there has been numerous attempts to erode the First Amendment, only to be thwarted by the ACLU. One more thing. American values are comletely different from civil liberties. As much as you’d like, we can’t say everyone except child molesters get free speech. Civil liberties must be defended no matter who’s at the line.
The reason we have First Amendment rights and freedom of speech is due to the wisdom of our founding fathers and the sacrifices of the men and women of our armed forces, not because of the ACLU. ACLU often works against the values of Americans in destroying our way of life.
Times ARE tough! So the last thing I need is some 250 lb., well-fed knucklehead asking ME for money. Look at these guys who’re asking for dough. The better half of ‘em are built like tanks—I think they eat better than many working families do.
As far as the “Free Speech” goes…I always thought it meant one could question & criticize GOVERNMENT without fear of arrest. But I guess I was wrong.
Everyone hates the ACLU, until their civil liberties are violated. Also remember this, the ACLU’s vigorous defense of the First Amendment is the reason you can run your mouth on this post without giving it a seconds thought. Try it in China; see where it gets you.
I hardly ever agree with anything Mr. Jewell says and this is no exception. Yes, tough times are ahead but allowing the homeless and con-artists to stand on sidewalks, harassing people who want to spend money that goes into City coffers is not my idea of a sound economic policy. The City needs to come up with a real plan to address homelessness, not pawn the problem off on shoppers and diners in Richmond. The truly homeless need to be provided with an alternative. Put them to work cleaning the streets and taking care of our parks in exchange for shelter, food, and assistance in getting them back on their own feet. Provide these workers with something that identifies them as being active participants of this program. That way people that support it can approach them when they see them cleaning the streets and offer them donations. Those soliciting donations without this could then be cracked down on under what I hope will be the City’s new and aggressive ordinance against panhandling. So either you are helping the City and yourself or you’re paying a steep fine. Sounds like a good incentive to get folks off the streets.
You might know the Americal Communist Lawyers Union would jump into a case like this.
I don’t see how harassing a motorist for money while he or she is stopped at a traffic light is the same thing as free speech. But I have never understood anything the ACLU does. I agree with crimediver…this will take away their resources used for protecting child pornographers, child molesters, hookers, and murderers.
It’s easy for a thinking person to make sense of these kinds of issues: if the ACLU supports, I’m against it!
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