urbanSTL

I disagree, I don't have a problem with people voluntarily giving money to people less well off. Some people will just sit on the street with a sign and a buckett, and you're telling me that that would be an illegal activity. I think this whole thing sounds ridiculous!!

appraisalman wrote:I disagree, I don't have a problem with people voluntarily giving money to people less well off. Some people will just sit on the street with a sign and a buckett, and you're telling me that that would be an illegal activity. I think this whole thing sounds ridiculous!!

Well you're welcome to your opinion and I can respect that. Only thing I'll add is that if that money going into the bucket is going towards drugs or alcohol are you really helping them? I'd argue that it's more effective to give to shelters that are designed to help the people and can be held accountable for where the money goes.

Urban Elitist wrote:^You're unbelieveable. I already said city attorney's would have to refine the law, they went to law school and are experts at doing just that. I'm only offering an idea that they could run with. Get over it already. You're just jealous because you didn't think of it.

So if they "refine" the law, it has no chance of being tossed out by the courts?



And yeah, I am soooooooooooo (not) jealous of you.

Think of it this way, when someone solicits a prostitute, is the act of prostitution wrong, or is the prostitute wrong for "being a prostitute". Essentially, is the action wrong, or is the "being wrong" from both points of view. Now apply this same kind of thinking to panhandling, and I think you'll see my point.



Do I think it helps someone if i give them a couple bucks on the street that is less fortunate that I, yes because I like to think that that's going to get them a hot cup of coffee, or meal, etc. Not everyone in society fits into the instutional mold that they need to be put in a shelter, sometimes it takes personal charity, and personal respobsibility to get someone back on their feet, instead of just being lumped into the "homeless crowd" at a shelter.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Ihnen wrote:Or it would classify the act of harassment as illegal.

That's the key. And I suspect there are existing laws to deal with that(?).

The problem with those laws is they call for the arrest and or fining of the harasser (i..e. the panhandles). This doesn't stop or even reduce panhandleing, as can be seen inthe current situation DT. It only cost the city dollars to enforce the laws and house the homeless. And any ticket given to them wil either not be paid, or they will panhandle more to pay it. We've got to hold the "Panhanding Johns" responsible to curtail this activity.

Dont make up words!!!! I said charity, not personal responsibility!!! You're not worse than the Post Dispatch!!!

appraisalman wrote:Dont make up words!!!! I said charity, not personal responsibility!!! You're not worse than the Post Dispatch!!!

Uh...re-read your own post, you said personal responsibility and perconl charity. In the same sentence in fact.

By personal responsibility, I mean it's our reponsibility to make sure that a homeless person is taking the right steps to get back on there feet by either becoming a sponsor, like they do for alcoholics, and just flat out caring about their well being.

Urban Elitist wrote:

appraisalman wrote:Do I think it helps someone if i give them a couple bucks on the street that is less fortunate that I, yes because I like to think that that's going to get them a hot cup of coffee, or meal, etc. Not everyone in society fits into the instutional mold that they need to be put in a shelter, sometimes it takes personal charity, and personal respobsibility to get someone back on their feet, instead of just being lumped into the "homeless crowd" at a shelter.

You just contradicted yourself. They should have personal responsibility yet they should expect handouts at the same time?!



Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. With free food and shelter at a homeless shelter, the guy down on his luck should have plenty of time to go and seek employment and earn an honest, legal buck. Then he can sustain himself. I prefer that result as opposed to being delusional about the true nature of the homeless problem and thinking a dollar here or there will help anything.

Seriously folks, UE is on to something here. There's a fair amount of logic at work in his argument. You have to accept three premises. First that money received by panhandling often goes toward things like drugs and alcohol (I'm not saying it always does). This is not unreasonable because there are suffcient resources downtown for shelter and food. So in essence, by giving, you're hurting more than helping. Second, if panhandling yields nothing, there is no incentive for it to continue. Again, I think this is intuitive. And third, if you want to attack the problem you need to do it from both ends (the givers and receivors). This is clearly evident in the prostitute/john analogy.

Urban Elitist's idea is nothing short of brilliant. The logic behind it is solid, makes sense, and if cleaned up by lawyers/politicians and enacted would benefit the residents of the city by stopping harrassment, and would also benefit the homeless by providing more money for their shelters. Money for panhandlers to buy drugs and alcohol would disappear. Money for "coffee and a hot meal" would be provided to the shelters and the city wouldn't have to lose money arresting panhandlers. People like Central Scrutinizer are the reason that no positive progress occurs in this country. He is the embodyment of the St. Louis - 'can't do it' attitude. His no can do mindset is the reason St. Louis fell so far into decay. UE's idea would instantly change downtown for the better.

scru?ti?nize

Pronunciation[skroot-n-ahyz]

verb, -nized, -niz?ing.

verb (used with object) 1. to examine in detail with careful or critical attention.





*****



ob?struct?

Pronunciation[uhb-struhkt]

verb (used with object) 1. to interrupt, hinder, or oppose the passage, progress, course, etc., of.

I don't think it's a no can do mindset, I just think he's looking out for big brother. If the government decides who or what we can't willingly give our money too, then what next?

appraisalman wrote:I don't think it's a no can do mindset, I just think he's looking out for big brother. If the government decides who or what we can't willingly give our money too, then what next?

What an excellent example of a straw man argument!



Tell me why you can't give your money to a prostitue then? How about a drug dealer? You can't because it causes harm to society. same goes with panhandling.

Panhandlers are beggars who approach strangers asking for money. Your coworker is not a stranger and thus no law would be broken. The distinction is pretty clear.



A quick google of the words "panhandling" and "ordinance" show there are already many such ordinances throughout the country: http://www.google.com/search?hs=QYS&hl= ... tnG=Search



Cities such as Atlanta, Orlando and Indianapolis have already passed such laws however they seemed to be aimed at the panhandlers themselves and not those that give money to them. See here: http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stor ... aily8.html



UE's idea appears to be novel. I say go with the prostitute / john analogy and make both panhandling and giving money to them illegal.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Urban Elitist wrote:^Exactally, it would be a crime to give money to a panhandler, whether or not he has a home or not would be irrelevant so I guess I should have used the word panhandler.

So if you give money to anyone who asks for it, that is illegal.



We are co-workers. I ask you for $5.00 to buy lunch, becuase I forgot my wallet. You give it to me. You just broke the law.

appraisalman wrote:I don't think it's a no can do mindset, I just think he's looking out for big brother. If the government decides who or what we can't willingly give our money too, then what next?

Also I should note the faulty "slippery slope" argument you've managed to insert in there as well.

drug dealing and prostitution are illegal activities!! I don't think that is a slippery slope.

appraisalman wrote:drug dealing and prostitution are illegal activities!!

Yes and at one point they weren't illigal, but then society woke up and realized the negative effect they had and outlawed them. I'm trying to understand your reasoning for not liking this idea, but you are presenting no real arguments or counter points, but rather logical fallicies that anyone who has taken a high school level debate class can defeat....



On top of allthis I think that panhandilg in some forms IS illegal here(not sure though), it just isn't enforced due to cost...

Prostitution and drug dealing are services--you buy something and you get something. When you give money to a panhandler, you are just giving money away. That's why it's not illegal for the one giving money.

stlmike wrote:Prostitution and drug dealing are services--you buy something and you get something. When you give money to a panhandler, you are just giving money away. That's why it's not illegal for the one giving money.

Correction. Prostitution and drug dealing are not illegal because they are services. There are an infinite number of services that are sold every day. They are illegal becuase they drag society down and hurt those involed. the same can be said of panhandling.

I didn't say they are illegal because they are services.



It is the service itself that drags society down. Not the passing of money.



There is no contract, no implications, in panhandeling of what will be done with the money. It is open ended and therefore, may not lead to illegal activity. It MIGHT lead to illegal activity. But then, so can opening a business. You might commit fraud. You might not. A bum might buy sandwhich, he might buy drugs. He might harrass you, that's illegal. Deal with it when he does it. Until then, you can't make giving money illegal.