urbanSTL

I'm late to the debate, but I like the idea. If you want to fight a problem, go at the supply and the demand (or from “both ends” as loftlover so hilariously put it, coming as it did so close to the prostitute analogy).



I think visitors would be more attracted to a downtown with less panhandling than turned off by the ordinance.



And I would hardly call the City of St. Louis big brother…if it was some federal law then I might be more concerned. But the great thing about local government is that they can enact things like this that benefit the majority of their citizens.



I question the idea of a panhandling license. First, I don’t think panhandlers have their act together enough to get an f’n license. Second, you’re still left with many that don’t have a license, and you’re right back to the enforcement problem we have now.



It would be tough for the city to look like the bad guy if 50% of the money collected went to homeless shelters, and when the city already shoulders so much of the burden for the region’s homeless.



Enact the ordinance, hand out the first citation, and let it get challenged in court. I think it’s more than worth a try.

innov8ion wrote: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?

But the constitutionality of laws is not decided on what you and I "both well know". It's decided upon what is written on the page.



So what if a "panhandler" decided that he wanted to help out by donating the money he made that day to the MDA? And I made a donation. Would I be breaking the law?

To all:

^Umm...don't give chicken to leprechauns?

jlblues wrote:^Umm...don't give chicken to leprechauns?

Nah, good guess though. That looks to be a troll, and someone seems to be feeding it.....

CS - I'm curious, how exactly do you think such an ordinance would be deemed unconstitutional? I see nothing in it that would violate anyone's rights, unless you are imagining some sort of free speech argument? Read through city ordinances some time. There are municipal ordinances against noise, loitering, cruising, littering, smells, there are curfews, there are ordinances about what you can and can't place on your own property, there are ordinances about molesting your neighbor's chickens (I think that one is in Texas somewhere) and on and on. There is an ordinance in the city of St. Louis that says you can't leave your car parked in the same place for more than three days in a row - found that out the hard way - why, I have no idea.



Essentially, a municipality can pass any ordinance it wants, no matter how ridiculous, provided it does not contradict state or federal law and it does not violate the rights granted an individual under the Bill of Rights. If loitering and noise ordinances withstood that test, then this certainly could.



Edit: CS - Still hungry?

I think that the people who are against it really aren't against panhandling. Do people really think it's a good deed to give money to these people? I've volunteered at shelters, food banks, etc. but giving money to people on the street only makes the problem worse. More "DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO PANHANDLERS" signs should be posted everywhere downtown. They are in the Loop for good reason. People think they're helping the "situation" by giving to these people, when in actuality, they're making it worse.

JCity wrote:More "DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO PANHANDLERS" signs should be posted everywhere downtown.

I think my call for signs got lost in the controversy UE stirred up with his proposal. I still think education is worth a shot before we engage in legislating behavior.

Although I am completely behind UE's proposal, I think Phobia is right. We should first saturate downtown with signs educating people about the negatives that result from giving handouts to panhandlers. Each sign should state a different fact to dissuade people. For example one sign would say:



DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO PANHANDLERS

According to a study, 2/3-3/4 of the money given to them will be used to buy alcohol, tobacco, or illegal drugs. Beds, coffee, and hot meals are provided in shelters thoughout downtown and the city. Direct panhandlers to those services.



Antoher would say



DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO PANHANDLERS

It is not a good deed, and will only encourage more panhandling.

Beds, coffee, and hot meals are provided in shelters thoughout downtown and the city. Direct panhandlers to those services.



If these signs don't work then we can enact legislation.

^ OK, good point, but how long to you think these signs would last before being taken down/destroyed/defaced etc?

loftlover wrote:^ OK, good point, but how long to you think these signs would last before being taken down/destroyed/defaced etc?

Those type of signs are all over downtown Memphis.

Call me crazy, but its not the best image boost for Downtown when visitors are met by signs saying "we have a major residentially challenged person problem" . Actually getting begged for money is bad too - but we want to perpetuate the good, signs would only shows the negative - to everyone.



Lets just have a task force, anyone who begs, we call a number and a patty wagon throws the people into the river in December... that would shut them up real quick.

tbspqr wrote:Call me crazy, but its not the best image boost for Downtown when visitors are met by signs saying "we have a major residentially challenged person problem" . Actually getting begged for money is bad too - but we want to perpetuate the good, signs would only shows the negative - to everyone.



Lets just have a task force, anyone who begs, we call a number and a patty wagon throws the people into the river in December... that would shut them up real quick.

People would rather see those signs all over than be pestered by panhandlers. It would also go a long way in thwarting Larry Rice's plan for scaring away the downtown revival. Show them we're aware of their plan. Show them they have no power or intimidation over us and that we'll make downtown great again despite their attempts to stop us.

SoulardD wrote:People would rather see those signs all over than be pestered by panhandlers. It would also go a long way in thwarting Larry Rice's plan for scaring away the downtown revival. Show them we're aware of their plan. Show them they have no power or intimidation over us and that we'll make downtown great again despite their attempts to stop us.

I agree- I'd much rather see the signs. At least it's a start.



How can the signs be any worse for downtown's image than the panhandlers, some of which happen to be quite aggressive?

There are signs downtown that say something like "park smart--store your valuables out of sight and lock your doors."



No panhandling signs couldn't be any worse.

This post has been inactive for over a day. Do we have a plan in place yet?

steve wrote:There are signs downtown that say something like "park smart--store your valuables out of sight and lock your doors."



No panhandling signs couldn't be any worse.

innov8ion wrote:This post has been inactive for over a day. Do we have a plan in place yet?

steve wrote:There are signs downtown that say something like "park smart--store your valuables out of sight and lock your doors."



No panhandling signs couldn't be any worse.

Yup. Hang signs informing people not to give money to the panhandlers, and then ticket them if they do. Problem solved.

^Please, would you.

Bastiat wrote:Ever notice how panhandling rarely happens inside a business (on private property)? If it does, it is a rare occasion and the panhandler is quickly kicked out when the owner finds out.

It may be a rare occasion, but scan through some recent posts and you'll find people's accounts of panhandlers brazen enough to step inside private businesses. Then, there are those that harass people seated in sidewalk dining areas (e.g. Bar Louie and Culpeppers in the CWE).



Since I know of no governments that have any serious plans to turn public sidewalks into private property, I think the signs are still a great first step.



(I'd also like to see that diagram!)

Actually, the other day I saw a guy--I'm assuming the manager--"shoo away" a panhandler outside City Grocers. He may not own the sidewallk, but he does have an interest in it. He can call the police to have the "no loitering" ordinance enforced.

They're out in force today at Kiener Plaza. Guess they can't be shooed away. That, or the fact that 90% of the restaurants down here are shuttered today. Very sad.

umm. It's Labor day..

Your point being? It's a big vacation day, lots of families out and about, on the last day of summer for many of them.....and nowhere to walk and grab a bite to eat. I had two backpackers ask me over at 11th and Locust if the entire city was dead or if they could grab a to-go bite somewhere. I had to point them all the way over to BreadCo. It and Jimmy John's were the only two I knew were open.