Proposed amendments to panhandling laws.
[The item below seems radical, until you realize that this the exact opposite is the current situation, and that if you turn this around and apply this to actions by homeless folk, this is exactly how they are treated. … if the well off had to put up with the presumptive justice that poor homeless folks deal with every day, there would be a hue and cry like you’ve never seen. -Thomas]
Pro Bono Project: Aggressive Panhandling Legislation, Homelessness and
Poverty. Necessary Amendments
——————————————————————————–
© Copyright 1994 by D.H. Myers. All Rights Reserved. For personal use only.
——————————————————————————–
Introduction
During my associations with indigent people who have had to panhandle for
money, I studied society’s discrimination against them. During the fall of
1994, the local city council commissioned a task force to study the city’s
panhandling problems. I found both the government’s position and the ACLU’s
position collusive in terms of shared agendas of a common-credentialized
culture of which the poor are generally excluded. The issues they proffered,
therefore, did not adequately represent the issues involving confrontation
between panhandlers, homeless, and the remainder of the public.
I noticed some other problems. I found the local homeless advocates to be
advocating without “standing”, who might have also been slapped with an
injunction and damages if the courts around here were honest. I noticed that
there is also a group of “amicus curiae” who do a “road show” in the court
system whenever the panhandling/homeless issues become litigated. They put
their post-secondary credentials to work to make their money from people who
want to remove beggars.
In the city where I live, the political machine, consisting of graduates of
post-secondary institutions, commissioned the task force as a political
favor for the local homeless exploiters, consisting of exploitative student
homeless advocates and the subsidized, college-credentialed ministry which
organizes a few free meals per week and other peanut-giving activity for the
local poor. They also hoped to appease some irrational business
association-people who greedily wanted to expand their control over the
downtown streets. The poor were merely pawns in the game, whose
participation effectively amounted to very little.
The following is what I wrote as an indigent, homeless person, the
principles of which could apply to places everywhere, and could be easily
made to be inclusive of homeless ad poor in their purview:
(Note: For more recent developments in Palo Alto’s underclass street scene,
check out the postings on the “sit-lie” ordinance and
the-media-vs.-the-homeless.)
To The Ad Hoc Task Force on Aggressive Panhandling
City of Palo Alto, California
December 14, 1994
A number of people have spoken with me over the past several months about
the Ad Hoc Aggressive Panhandling Task Force and other poverty related
issues…. I have read the briefs presented to you by the city attorney’s
office and the local ACLU legal panel. Their research into law cases has
somewhat paralleled my own, which has included study of Ulmer, Loper, Young,
Blair, and other law cases and studies not cited by them in their briefs. I
am familiar with their other points and precedents, and I have a copy of the
sample aggressive panhandling ordinances from other cities given to you by
the city attorney’s office.
The following possible ordinance amendments are my own doing to address some
of the infirmites of existing legislation against which the indigent are
likely to be impacted. A leader of the local underclass has asked that I
submit them for you to look at. These amendments are generic in the sense
they could be incorporated into the anti-panhandling/homeless legislation of
other localities, give or take a few words, such as the anti-panhandling
legislation of Santa Cruz, San Diego, West Hollywood, Sacramento, and San
Francisco.
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AMENDMENTS TO AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING ORDINANCES
WHEREAS, it appears that legislation prohibiting aggressive panhandling is
likely to have an unfair, invidious, and oppressive impact upon the hungry,
homeless, and similarly indigent persons in (name of city), the City Council
hereby ordains the following:
Sections ________ through sections______ are created in the (name of city)
Municipal Code, to state:
Section ______: It shall be unlawful for any person to falsely or
fraudulently accuse of, arrest, or cause to be confronted any person for
aggressive solicitation without reasonable cause. The following shall not
constitute reasonable cause:
a. Where the suspected person is wearing dirty or wrinkled clothes; has
unshaven, unkempt personal appearance; is unbathed, unwashed, or other
apparent lack of normal, business-like personal hygiene; or who uses in
plain view a backpack or other portable container for personal belongings,
or who possesses or uses a sleeping bag or other camping gear.
b. Where the suspected person unobstructively stops, stands, reclines, or
sits on a public sidewalk, other public property, or upon private property
open to the public, whether or not with the intent to solicit alms.
c. Any factor regarding race, religion, color, age, national origin,
disability, or sex of the suspected person;
Section ______ . It shall be unlawful to falsely or fraudulently report to
any police officer or government agency that any suspected panhandler,
homeless person, or other indigent person is in the character or process of
any of the following acts:
a. committing any offense involving any controlled substance;
b. urinating or defecating on public sidewalks, streets, alleyways, or other
public property;
c. hostile approaching, intimidating, hounding, threatening, coercing,
obstructing, or detaining any pedestrian or vehicle driver or passenger;
d. smoking in prohibited areas;
f. drinking alcoholic beverages in prohibited areas, or public drunkenness;
e. shoplifting, theft, littering, or loitering with intent to commit a
crime;
f. engaging in any lewd or lascivious acts;
g. engaging in any non-consensual amorous or social activity;
h. blocking any path or access to any business;
i. any other act or trait which may be regarded as a prejudicial, criminal,
or stereotypical attribute of poor people.
Section _____ . Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the word
“falsely” means that the party causing the report knows or should know that
there is no factual basis or reasonable cause for an accusation of
aggressive solicitation; and the word “fraudulently” implies that the party
causing the report, whether an individual, business, or other organization,
knows or should know that the prohibited acts of complained about are
excusable, whether or not actually committed by the suspect, or that the
accusation of aggressive solicitation is substantially the product of
hatred, contempt, ridicule, defamation, discrimination on the basis of
poverty, homelessness, or fear of the suspect.
Section _______ . Presumptions and Burden of Proof
a. All reports to the police against the presumptively indigent by
presumptively non-indigent persons for violations of aggressive panhandling
laws shall be presumed to be false or fraudulent.
b. All reports to the police described in this section against presumptively
indigent persons by presumptively non-indigent persons shall be presumed to
be in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Sec 51 et seq. of the
California Civil Code), based upon the respective color, race, sex, etc. of
the accuser and the accused.
Section _______ . It shall be unlawful for any business operator, employee,
or customer thereof to approach or surveil any panhandler, homeless person,
or other indigent person for the purpose intimidation, coercion, harassment.
Section______ . Defamation Against Indigent Customer by Business. Any
business owner, employee, or customer thereof who causes by libelous or
slanderous means any known homeless person, panhandler, indigent customer to
be ejected, barred from entry, or charged with trespass from any business
establishment in which the general public is invited to enter, is guilty of
a misdemeanor.
Section _______ . Malicious Mischief. Any person who causes any vandalism,
disturbs the peace, starts any fire, sets off any alarm device, aggressively
panhandles, or engages in other malicious activity with the intent to
implicate or bring suspicion upon any indigent, homeless person or beggar in
the vicinity of the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor. This offense shall
be deemed separate from the offense otherwise punishable by law.
Section _______. Hate Crime Provision . Any person, business, or other
organization guilty of violating sections shall, upon civil suit instituted
by the victim, be assessed a $2500 civil penalty in addition to any other
remedy provided by law.
Section _______ . Three Strikes Provision. Any business or other
organization causing to be instituted 3 false or fraudulent complaints under
this chapter within a 3 month period shall be subject to abatement.
Section _______ . Disclosure. The identities and home addresses of all
reporting parties shall be kept by the police and disclosed upon request
during regular business hours to the person suspected of aggressive
panhandling, whether or not an arrest is made. Any waiver of this disclosure
right by the suspect shall be deemed contrary to public policy and void.
Section _______ . Conflict of Interest. No City official, appointee, or
employee shall participate in any activity which solicits money by claiming
or implying that indigent people, panhandlers, or homeless persons are
mentally ill. Any City official, appointee, or employee who violates this
section automatically forfeits public office, appointment, or employment.
Section _______ . Citation Procedure. Any person, business, or other
organization guilty of violating the above sections shall, upon demand of
the individual confronted, be issued a citation and arrested, if necessary,
and shall be held punishable according to law. Any waiver of this citation
right by the confronted individual shall be deemed contrary to public policy
and void.
Section ________. The provisions of sections_____ through______ shall not
apply to persons reasonably suspected entering or residing in the United
States in violation of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Code.
Section ________ . Duration. The provisions of sections _______ through
__________shall expire on (date) unless re-enacted.
Section _______ . The provisions of sections ______ through ______ are
intended to supplement existing state and federal laws.
I hereby charge a consultation fee of $1000, depending upon ability to pay,
from each person, organization, or governmental unit which uses the above
amendments or similar ideas derived from this written work product in
pursuit of government action or professional use for profit. The above
amendments are Copyright, 1994, by D.H. Myers. All rights reserved. Sorry
about this. I am indigent.
Respectfully,
___________________________
Daniel H. Myers
Appendix: Sample Aggressive Panhandling Ordinances from San Diego,
California, which are typical of other places:
from http://www.sannet.gov/cgi-bin/munigoto
Section 52.4001 — Acts Prohibited
It is unlawful for any person on the streets, sidewalks, or other places
open to the public, whether publicly or privately owned, to aggressively
coerce, threaten, hound, harass, or intimidate another person for the
purpose of soliciting money or goods.
History:
(Added 10-25-93 by O-17998 N.S.)
Section 52.4002 — Aggressive Conduct
For purposes of this Division, a person “aggressively coerces, threatens,
hounds, harasses or intimidates another person” when:
(a) The solicitor’s conduct would cause a reasonable person in
the position of the solicitee to fear for his or her safety; or (b) The
solicitor intentionally blocks the path of the solicitee; or (c) The
solicitor persists in following the solicitee closely, and continues to
demand money or other thing of value after the solicitee has rejected the
solicitation by words or conduct. History: (Added 10-25-93 by O-17998
N.S.) Section 52.4003 — Reasonable Fear for Safety For purposes of this
Division, the following facts, among others, are relevant in deciding
whether a reasonable person would have cause to fear for his or her
safety:
(a) the solicitor’s making physical contact with the solicitee;
or
(b) the proximity of the solicitor to the solicitee;
or
(c) the duration of the solicitation; or
(d) the solicitor’s making threatening gestures or
other threatening conduct, including closely following the
solicitee.
History:
(Added 10-25-93 by O-17998 N.S.)
Section 52.4004 — Definitions
For purposes of this Division:
“Aggressively” means behaving in a hostile manner. “Coerce” means to force
or
bring about by force or threat. “Harass” means to irritate or torment
persistently. “Hound” means to pursue relentlessly and tenaciously.
“Intentionally block” means to walk, stand, sit, lie, or place
an object in such a manner as to block passage by another person or a
vehicle,
or to require another person or driver of a vehicle to take evasive action
to
avoid physical contact.
“Intimidate” means to frighten into submission or obedience.
“Solicitor” means a person who asks for money or goods as a charity, whether
by words, bodily gestures, signs or other means.
“Threaten” means to express an intention to inflict evil, injury or damage.
History:
(Added 10-25-93 by O-17998 N.S.)
Section 52.4005 — Demand for Services
This Division is not intended to proscribe any demand for payment for
services
rendered or goods delivered.
History:
(Added 10-25-93 by O-17998 N.S.)
Section 52.4006 — Free Speech
This Division is not intended to restrict the exercise of protected free
speech.
History:
(Added 10-25-93 by O-17998 N.S.)
