Proposal would ban panhandling on sidewalks

» 22 Comments | Post a Comment

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

 
View More: richmond,panhandling,latest news,aclu,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by Kenny on January 14, 2009 at 7:20 am

This is long over due.  Many of these people we see standing on the side of the road are nothing more than con artists.  Save your money and give to the bonafide organization who are truly trying to help the people who need it

Flag Comment Posted by Crimediver on January 14, 2009 at 7:02 am

The ACLU is now involved? Why don’t they just stick to their usual practice of filing lawsuits on behalf of child pornographers?

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.
Click here to post a comment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement