urbanSTL

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

innov8ion wrote: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.

Last weekend, several fire fighters (all of them strangers to me, and I to them) approached me asking for money. Would I be breaking the law if I gave them money?

Dued, you're out there. Read the posts. There are checks and balances with every law, and your argument is mute.

loftlover wrote:Come on! You don't think the word would spread quickly? It'll end up being a national debate! The incentive to stop panhandling is simply no one's giving!

Exactly. If in combating prostitution we didn't punish the Johns, demand would be much higher and there would be much more prostitution than there currently is. The knowledge of this law would spread like wildfire, and for once STL could be at the forefront pioneering revolutionary public policy.

How about a panhandeling licence. If you break the laws, or have a drug record, do it on private property, or harass people, you get it revoked.

stlmike wrote:How about a panhandeling licence. If you break the laws, or have a drug record, do it on private property, or harass people, you get it revoked.

Interesting idea. I just worry that the added bureaucracy needed to keep all of that straight would cost the city a great deal of money, instead of making the city and the local shelters money, while increasing the attractiveness of city life.

loftlover wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

innov8ion wrote: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.

Last weekend, several fire fighters (all of them strangers to me, and I to them) approached me asking for money. Would I be breaking the law if I gave them money?

Dued, you're out there. Read the posts. There are checks and balances with every law, and your argument is mute.

And in this case, what are those checks and balances? Or have you thought that far ahead?

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Urban Elitist wrote:

loftlover wrote:Dued, you're out there. Read the posts. There are checks and balances with every law, and your argument is mute.

Just stop responding to him. Let him raise all of the ridiculous, unrelated anologies he wants to. It only diminishes his own credibility.

Translation: I can't logically answer any of his questions, so I'll just ignore him.

^No. We've already stated multiple times that we are not working the kinks out of the policy. The city's attorneys would need to do that. We are only discussing wheather or not tickteking "johns" would be effecive/moral/correct. You are the only one out on the tangent of trying to actually write an air tight bill. I encourage no one to take his bait and go off on his tangents.

The other thing we have to think about is that ending panhandeling is probably a major displacement of problems. I imagine if everyone was arrested for panhandeling and its frequencey dropped, we would probably see a spike in assaults and robberys.

TheWayoftheArch wrote:

Urban Elitist wrote:

loftlover wrote:Come on! You don't think the word would spread quickly? It'll end up being a national debate! The incentive to stop panhandling is simply no one's giving!

Exactly. If in combating prostitution we didn't punish the Johns, demand would be much higher and there would be much more prostitution than there currently is. The knowledge of this law would spread like wildfire, and for once STL could be at the forefront pioneering revolutionary public policy.

We don't need a revolution, we don't need a debate. Right now you claim it will spread into a national feeding frenzy. That is just semantics. I think it will be a disincentive for people to come to the city. "I don't want johnny law sizing me up for getting asked something by a stranger." It would be a constant harassment. How about tourists? Wouldn't they love to get a fine for giving 50 cents to a guy "who just needs 75 cents to get on the metro."



Vive la Revolution. Kiss the renaissance good bye.

That's a fair argument. Only response I have is that many places have local laws that you must obey when trtaveling. it would be our responsibility to make sure there is adequete signage and tat hotels have leafletts warning of te ordinance.

TheWayoftheArch wrote:

Urban Elitist wrote:

loftlover wrote:Come on! You don't think the word would spread quickly? It'll end up being a national debate! The incentive to stop panhandling is simply no one's giving!

Exactly. If in combating prostitution we didn't punish the Johns, demand would be much higher and there would be much more prostitution than there currently is. The knowledge of this law would spread like wildfire, and for once STL could be at the forefront pioneering revolutionary public policy.

We don't need a revolution, we don't need a debate. Right now you claim it will spread into a national feeding frenzy. That is just semantics. I think it will be a disincentive for people to come to the city. "I don't want johnny law sizing me up for getting asked something by a stranger." It would be a constant harassment. How about tourists? Wouldn't they love to get a fine for giving 50 cents to a guy "who just needs 75 cents to get on the metro."



Vive la Revolution. Kiss the renaissance good bye.

I don't know when you were last downtown, but the homeless/panhandling problem is more of a threat to the renaissance that any debate about the problem itself. What are you afraid of? I'm not talking a "feeding frenzy", just an intelligent debate about an idea. We can't get there from here unless we deal with this, and I haven't seen any other out of the box thinking that merits attention.

I appreciate the argument but you and I both well know that there is a distinction between a panhandler and firemen raising money for Muscular Dystrophy.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Last weekend, several fire fighters (all of them strangers to me, and I to them) approached me asking for money. Would I be breaking the law if I gave them money?

Ack... Let's just call it devil's advocacy. There is a place for Central Scrutinizer's arguments. Please let's not denigrate each other. We're here to discuss issues.

Urban Elitist wrote:

loftlover wrote:Dued, you're out there. Read the posts. There are checks and balances with every law, and your argument is mute.

Just stop responding to him. Let him raise all of the ridiculous, unrelated anologies he wants to. It only diminishes his own credibility.

stlmike wrote:The other thing we have to think about is that ending panhandeling is probably a major displacement of problems. I imagine if everyone was arrested for panhandeling and its frequencey dropped, we would probably see a spike in assaults and robberys.

On the contrary, if you eliminate the source (funds for drugs and alcohol) there may be more hope for rehabilitation. Again, we're not talking about those "arrested for panhandling", we're talking about educating the public that the act of giving to pandhandlers is counter-productive and that doing so is a fineable offense.

" Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast. "

-Ron Burgundy

TheWayoftheArch wrote:To derisively ask when the last time I was in downtown as if I am speaking from a position of ignorance is a cheapshot. Read all the thread before you post.

I wasn't asking, it was a statement. Not my intention to get personal.

Wow, this thread got interesting.



I gotta say, the idea of punishing those who actually give to panhandlers is really interesting. It would give a lot of people ammunition, and by extension courage, when dealing with panhandlers. "Sorry, guy, but it's against the law."



Despite its novelty, I just don't think it's a good idea. People are free to do with their money what they wish, so long as it's not criminal, and I think it's a stretch, and I think courts would think it a stretch, to say that giving money to stangers who simply ask for it should be a criminal offense. Again, comparing those who give money to panhandlers to "johns" is interesting, but it is a tenuous analogy at best. Johns and the purchasers of drugs are commiting what are more clearly morally reprehensible actions, at least in terms of prevailing societal standards. But is the mere act of giving money, which may or may not lead to criminal or morally suspect activity, clearly violative of prevailing societal standards? I am not convinced.



To paraphrase Tacitus, the more laws a country has, the more corrupt it is. I just don't feel comfortable with enacting more laws restricting the freedom of myself and my fellow citizens. It's just not worth it. As others have better pointed out, it may not even be all that efficacious in curbing panhandling--the libertarian argument notwithstanding. But my chief concern is with individual liberty, and in this case, the (debatable) social good of the ordinance would not outweigh the harm to individual freedom.

Well said

Steve, I'll concede that the idea is novel and that your argument is well stated (although I did have to look up a few words in the dictionary). My only reply is that the intent is not to have this be a criminal offense. Is getting a parking ticket a criminal offense? And again, I've been living with this for over a year, the problem is getting worse, and I've not heard a better idea to address it. Sure, lots of people who have no stake have acknowledged the problem, but we need to get past that and find a solution.

loftlover wrote:My only reply is that the intent is not to have this be a criminal offense. Is getting a parking ticket a criminal offense?

Well, true, no. What we are talking about in this instance would be a city ordinance. So we'd be talking about an "infraction" instead of a criminal offense.



But again, I just don't feel comfortable with it, and I don't think courts would agree with it either.



In any event, we can't legislate away every single problem. We have to be careful when passing new laws, because they can cause just as many problems as they solve.



It is a very clever idea though.