Maybe the third time will be the charm for a proposed solicitation ordinance in Hanover County. The Board of Supervisors voted 4-2 yesterday to have county staff again revise a proposal on solicitation, this time to put restrictions on such activities only along Meadowbridge Road from Interstate 295 to the Henrico County line. Last month, County Attorney Sterling E. Rives III presented an ordinance that prohibited anyone from seeking to distribute handbills, bulletins and other literature; solicit contributions; or sell merchandise or services to drivers and passengers of motor vehicles.

Maybe the third time will be the charm for a proposed solicitation ordinance in Hanover County. The Board of Supervisors voted 4-2 yesterday to have county staff again revise a proposal on solicitation, this time to put restrictions on such activities only along Meadowbridge Road from Interstate 295 to the Henrico County line. Last month, County Attorney Sterling E. Rives III presented an ordinance that prohibited anyone from seeking to distribute handbills, bulletins and other literature; solicit contributions; or sell merchandise or services to drivers and passengers of motor vehicles.

After a discussion that seemed to go in circles, the Hanover County Board of Supervisors last night voted 4-3 to defer action on a proposed solicitation ordinance. Board Vice Chairman G. Ed Via III, as well as board members Aubrey M. Stanley and Elton J. Wade Sr., voted against the motion. The proposed ordinance presented last night would have allowed the county to prohibit or regulate the distribution of handbills or similar materials, the solicitation of contributions and the sale of merchandise or services on public roads and private roads designated as highways.

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.

Hanover County officials say they’re catching the overflow of panhandlers who can no longer operate on the streets of Henrico County. Hanover’s Board of Supervisors voted yesterday to have a public hearing Oct. 14 on an ordinance that would prohibit individuals on public roads and highways from selling goods, soliciting or distributing literature.

The sponsors of a Richmond ordinance to crack down on panhandling deserve a cheer for withdrawing the measure. They shouldn’t have introduced it in the first place. And they ought to give the idea up for good instead of hoping merely to revise it. But at least they have made a strategic retreat, and that is something. The measure would have trampled all over the First Amendment by forbidding individuals to ask for money from passing, or even stationary, motor vehicles. Its broad language would have outlawed even sitting quietly on the sidewalk with a sign reading, “Hungry—Please Help.“

The Richmond City Council has put off until Feb. 23 a proposed ordinance that would crack down on panhandling and other forms of solicitation. The interval should give proponents of the idea occasion to reflect on its fatally broad sweep. The measure expands a prohibition against soliciting in roadway medians to all areas in the right-of-way, including curbs and sidewalks. It forbids anyone to “solicit, by spoken word, written sign or gesture, contributions of any nature from the drivers of motor vehicles or passengers therein.“ That would make it illegal to sit quietly on the sidewalk with a sign reading, “Hungry—please help.“ Aggressively interpreted, the ordinance could be used to shut down sidewalk solicitors for charitable causes.

A proposed Richmond city ordinance seeks to crack down on panhandling by extending a current ban on begging in the roadway to nearby curbs and sidewalks. It’s a mean-spirited measure that violates the First Amendment, and the City Council ought to spike it. It also comes loaded with some potential unintended consequences. The measure would forbid anyone to “solicit, by spoken word, written sign or gesture, contributions of any nature from the drivers of motor vehicles or passengers therein.“ A perceptive reader wonders whether that might forbid, say, Salvation Army-kettle bell-ringers. If they’re within sight of motor vehicles, then it seems as though the answer would have to be yes. At the very least, a case could be made.

No one likes being panhandled. I can’t imagine the panhandler enjoys it, either. The giver (or rejecter) wades through a sea of emotions—intimidation, guilt, mistrust, anger. Compassion mingles with the nagging fear that you’re subsidizing an unhealthy habit. I can’t speak for the beggar, but the act looks depressing and demeaning. If it’s a hustle, it lacks glamour.

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.