Regulation: Panhandling in Hanover
Like a virus, statutory restrictions on panhandling have been spreading throughout Central Virginia. What began in Richmond moved to Henrico, and now threatens to infect Hanover. County officials will hold a hearing in mid-October on an ordinance that would forbid people to sell, solicit, or distribute literature on public roads.
Legitimate concerns about safety underlie the proposal. People darting in and out of traffic present a danger to themselves and to others, and localities certainly should be able to restrict such behavior.
Unfortunately, some localities -- see Richmond for a classic case -- have used the safety argument as a Trojan horse to sneak into law gross violations of free speech. (The city does not even permit an individual to sit quietly on the sidewalk with a sign that passing motorists could read.) Those efforts represent a none-too-subtle approach to make social undesirables move along. They invite selective enforcement: Authorities might bust a vagrant with a "homeless vet" sign for doing precisely the same thing -- soliciting money -- that they allow a group of firefighters to do by conducting a fill-the-boot campaign unmolested.
But Lady Justice is not supposed to ask who you are before deciding if you broke the law. We encourage Hanover's leaders to write their ordinance with an eye to ensuring people's physical safety and their constitutional rights -- along with the equal treatment to which all citizens are entitled.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
There are three important issues.
Chief among them is that professional social workers consistently discourage giving cash to panhandlers because they know, from experience, that the cash is rarely, almost never, used for necessities. Those who think they are helping by giving cash directly to panhandlers are, in reality, hurting them. Instead, those inclined to donate should donate to the charities whose records indicate they do provide the necessary assistance to the homeless - effectively.
Secondly, solicitors or advocates of any sort in the right of way create a danger to themselves and to others and distract drivers. For this reason, solicitors and advocates - whether panhandlers, firemen, church members, or others - should be absolutely be prohibited in the right of way, including medians. This should apply, too, to those sitting or standing silently holding signs of any sort - whether they be solicitors, campaign worker, or others promoting any cause.
Thirdly, equal treatment under the law and free speech rights demand that no single group be singled out in the adopton and enforcement of restrictions on activities in the right-of-way.
The proper solution is not selective restriction, or selective enforcement, or failure to act. For the reasons cities above, all should be prohibited from use the right-of-way for purposes other than that for which it is intended - transportation.
One fails to understand why legislators - city, county, state, and national - do not take this commonsense approach that serves to protect the interests, safety, and rights of all.
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