Northampton panhandling law meets opposition
1
2
NORTHAMPTON - In the 26 years she's been shopping downtown, Marjorie Hess has never experienced aggressive or threatening behavior from a panhandler. Neither has John Cohen, a frequent visitor to downtown since moving here three years ago.
Downtown Sounds business owner Joe Blumenthal, however, says that on many occasions he has observed the kind of aggressive panhandling that is way out of the comfort zone for someone who simply wants to walk down the street. So, too, has Judith Fine, who owns Gazebo on Center Street, and Rich Madowitz, who works as a leasing agent for Hampshire Property Management Group, which manages Thornes Marketplace and about a dozen other city properties.
Therein lies the conundrum that faces members of three City Council subcommittees who are beginning to examine a new solicitation ordinance that attempts to regulate where, when and how people are allowed to ask passers-by for money.
More than 50 people packed City Council chambers Monday night to share their opinions on the most recent version of the ordinance. Of the two dozen residents who spoke at a public hearing held by the Committee on Public Safety, more than half were against the proposed ordinance. Some see it as infringement against a constitutionally protected practice, while others question whether such an ordinance is needed or whether it treats those in need with the respect they deserve.
Like many who spoke, Hess found the ordinance in poor taste.
"When I say no, I am greeted with silence or 'Have a nice day,'" said the Masonic Street resident. "The problem is not panhandling. The problem is poverty. This is not the Northampton I know and love. Please reject this mean-spirited ordinance."
The ordinance also had its supporters, most of whom were business owners and city officials. They argue that the ordinance would put in place much-needed regulatory measures designed to curb aggressive and fraudulent panhandling, and cut down on complaints from residents who feel beleaguered by the intimidating way many panhandlers ask for money.
Downtown business owners and their customers say aggressive panhandling causes daily conflicts, according to Suzanne Beck, executive director of the Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce.
"Panhandling is the number one concern for businesses and customers," said Beck.
Police Chief Russell Sienkiewicz said the aggressive nature of solicitation has escalated in recent years.
"In the past year or two, there is much more serious concern about the level of solicitation behavior on the streets of Northampton," he said.
Since proposing the initial draft of the ordinance in June, city officials have stressed that the new regulations are not designed to ban solicitation. Rather, they clearly spell out where, when and how anyone - from a panhandler to a representative of a charitable organization - can ask for money.
Monday's hearing included discussion from the ordinance's proponents, including the police chief, city solicitor and economic development director, as well as William Newman, who directs the western Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ordinance is currently working its way through three City Council subcommittees. Thursday night marked the first official public hearing, although opposition to the new rules has been fierce at the City Council meetings for months.
Citing concerns with some of the language in the ordinance, the public safety committee asked city officials bringing it forward to recraft some of the wording and present the proposal again at its meeting in January or February. If the committee likes the changes, it would then reopen the public hearing for further comment at that time.
Proposed rules
The ordinance would prohibit aggressive soliciting, soliciting for money at nighttime and making false or misleading statements, and would include a host of other regulations, such as the distance one must stand from certain structures in order to solicit. The ordinance prohibits soliciting within 15 feet of any bank ATM, pay phone, parking pay box, public toilet or bus stop.
The use of violent or threatening behavior or language, unwanted touching or blocking of the public passage would also be forbidden under the ordinance.
Violators would face fines starting at $50 for first-time offenders, followed by a $100 penalty for a second offense, $200 for a third offense, and $300 for fourth and subsequent offenses.
Teri Anderson, the city's economic development director, told a group of about 100 people, mostly students, at a public forum at Smith College last week that the ordinance's goals are twofold: to reduce the incidents of aggressive and fraudulent panhandling on downtown streets and to manage public spaces and sidewalks.
Anderson said homeless advocates and others who deal with the needy say that most of the people who are panhandling downtown are not homeless.
"Those that are homeless say that aggressive and fraudulent panhandling has given them a bad name," Anderson said.
The city also has a right to manage its public spaces and sidewalks, she said. It already does so for things like newsboxes, street musicians and artist tables.
"This ordinance is meant to do a similar thing for solicitation," she said.
Anderson handed out a map at last week's Smith College forum that detailed where solicitation would be acceptable and forbidden. A good portion of Main Street and Pleasant Street, where most of the solicitation takes place, is still open, she said.
Newman, of the ACLU, has concerns about the ordinance. Despite several revisions, he maintains that soliciting for money is a constitutionally protected activity and that this most recent version seems to violate First Amendment protection.
"If you need to carry around a map to decide where to talk to people, you have had a significant infringement on free speech," he said during last week's Smith College panel.
Newman noted that two-thirds of the rules in the ordinance, including many of the restrictions under the aggressive and fraudulent solicitation categories, concern activities that are already against state and federal laws.
"These are crimes that are already on the books; they can convert them to a civil infraction if they want to, but they are already crimes," he said.
Newman believes that if there were more police presence downtown, the ordinance would not be needed.
"All of the behavior that you find objectionable ... no one is defending it," Newman said. "When it comes to telling people that they can't sit on a bench and solicit, it's just wrong. Yet that's what this ordinance does."
City Solicitor Janet Sheppard disagrees.
She maintains that the ordinance conforms with accepted state and federal laws and does not violate free speech. In a supporting opinion, Sheppard cites several state and federal court rulings that give municipalities the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which one can solicit for money.
City officials believe that by decriminalizing aggressive and fraudulent behavior, as the ordinance does, it will give police a civil option of fines and leeway to refer solicitors to social service organizations. Sienkiewicz said police will likely issue a series of warnings before levying a fine. Currently, police must use criminal regulations to enforce the law, which involves the court system and becomes a lengthy process.
Comments
...and the only
...and the only consitutuents whose needs the cops are responding to are the businesses in the chamber of commerce. There have been no other reports but anonymous complaints cited by these proponents of the ordinance. This entire ordinance was thought up not by the police or Teri Anderson but by Suzanne Beck and Dan Yacuzo of the council--it's obvious whose interests are being acted upon. I'm not saying "aggressive panhandling" doesn't exist or devalidating those who have experienced it, but there is no data that panhandlers are more likely to resort to violent crime than any other population. If you are upper or middle class you are twenty times more likely to be attacked by someone in your class, and if you are homeless you are much more likely to be a victim than a victimizer. There is no police data in Northampton that shows panhandlers are guilty of any proportion of violent crime, and even an informal survey like Councilor Carney suggested has not been undertaken. Why? Perhaps businessowners are afraid that those without incentive would tell the truth and say what we hear every day--that they have never had a negative experience with a panhanndler in Northampton. Sure, there are bad apples, like there are in any class, but these are known to the police---so why don't they do something about them under existing laws if they are committing fraud, violent crime, obstructing doorways, or threatening crime, all of which are already punishable crimes?
What is it but stealth gentrification when you propose to have Northampton "compete with malls" as you state in the BID or have tour guides that also serve as informants, acting as the "eyes and ears" of the law? Whose lawbreaking would they report first, "suspicious characters", i.e. poor people, or those of businesses themselves?
Also, we are sincerely sorry for the street cop/martial law images. It was a mistake made by one of our members and it won't happen again, and it is not representative of our views as a group. We also apologized to the police dept about it.
And panhandlers are not acting based on an attitude of "---- you, elitist pigs!" They are hungry and needy, and acting based on desperation and the need for warmth and subsistence. Perhaps they occasionally block your cars while they do that--if so, they should be gently moved aside, but squeezing them away from the only places there are foot traffic and panhandling is viable is cruel and self-centered, as if these people are blocking your cars just to ruin your day. Store owners usually begin with a condescending attitude with these folks, from everything I've heard from them, and obviously it doesn't take long before they go for approaches like signs saying "don't give money to panhandlers" like they did a few years ago, seriously endangering the parts of these people's livelihoods that social services aren't adequate to fulfill, or a legal control heavy approach such as they are using now.
Caty Simon
member of Poverty Is Not A Crime
Freedom Center collective member
member of Arise for Social Justice
one of the he opposition that discredits themselves so easily
I'm glad you find it so easy to distinguish who is truly needy. As for what we have done for our town lately--we volunteer in Food Not Bombs, and are attempting to establish more meals a week for the homeless using college cafeteria leftovers, working with dining services in the 5 colleges. We value independent businesses as much as anyone, and we don't see them as monolithic--we know of many business owners that have signed petitions vs. the ordinance, and don't see their economic survival as only being earned at the cost of someone weaker. Those who feel they have to drive out the poor by rigorously overregulating them out of town--aren't these people the very definition of oppressive? Isn't that more than just some Marxist cliche? And for your information, the needy and impacted are part of our leadership, and they certainly feel their welfare is worth protesting about. I know you'd probably prefer us to speak softly so that *certain* (not all) business concerns could railroad over us, but we are exercising our right to protest *and* to civil discourse in council.
Caty Simon
member of Poverty Is Not A Crime
Freedom Center collective member
member of Arise for Social Justice
PS. Judith Fine asks us how dare we question her business practices, as if just b/c she gives a small amount to charity means she can create all the exclusive legislation she wants. How dare she proclaim that she is above criticism?
one of the he opposition that discredits themselves so easily
I'm glad you find it so easy to distinguish who is truly needy. As for what we have done for our town lately--we volunteer in Food Not Bombs, and are attempting to establish more meals a week for the homeless using college cafeteria leftovers, working with dining services in the 5 colleges. We value independent businesses as much as anyone, and we don't see them as monolithic--we know of many business owners that have signed petitions vs. the ordinance, and don't see their economic survival as only being earned at the cost of someone weaker. Those who feel they have to drive out the poor by rigorously overregulating them out of town--aren't these people the very definition of oppressive? Isn't that more than just some Marxist cliche? And for your information, the needy and impacted are part of our leadership, and they certainly feel their welfare is worth protesting about. I know you'd probably prefer us to speak softly so that *certain* (not all) business concerns could railroad over us, but we are exercising our right to protest *and* to civil discourse in council.
Caty Simon
member of Poverty Is Not A Crime
Freedom Center collective member
member of Arise for Social Justice
PS. Judith Fine asks us how dare we question her business practices, as if just b/c she gives a small amount to charity means she can create all the exclusive legislation she wants. How dare she proclaim that she is above criticism?
Panhandling: The protesters' slogans do the cause a disservice.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Last night's meeting was odd in many ways. The self-appointed defenders of this belief or that, regardless of its relevance to the ordinance, dominated the meeting and may have given the council the impression that they represent the population at large, though they are far from a cross-section.
I felt on the defensive, disdained, and judged as an oppressor in my support for some of the goals of the ordinance, as did my friend who owns a store downtown. I am no conservative, and honestly, I'm annoyed by the rudeness and arrogance of the people that lay like carpets across the sidewalk all day, not the people who simply sit and ask for money. I know and like many of the people I'm complaining about, but don't have the courage or even really the inclination to say anything to them, especially in large groups.
The survival of most of these stores and businesses is jeopardized by economic realities, now and even before the crisis, and every sale is important. If people have to (or choose to) walk out and around cars to get by, they miss some store entrances completely. The groups of people are sometimes benign but they are omnipresent squatters, monopolizing a bench or area that is not designed to be an encampment. They often scream (sing), curse, and belch etc. Okay, sure, toughen up shoppers, this is the REAL world, but when store owners ask them to please at least tone it down. They don't. "---- her, ha ha!" It's a poorly thought-out "---- you elitist ruling class capitalist" kind of relationship that many have with this issue and the town in general.
Even the more eloquent of the anti-ordinance speakers failed for the most part to concede that any of the concerns the ordinance tries to address were legitimate. This meeting was about the content of the ordinance and suggestions as to how it might be revised to please both "sides," yet many anti-ordinance attendees spoke in all or nothing language. The pooh-poohing of the ordinance and its goals was helped by the stacked make-up of the room and sloganeering. It bordered on insulting, as Judith Fine, owner of Gazebo pointed out. How dare anyone accuse merchants of trying to rid the town of the "homeless" or "poor." There is no disdain for the "panhandlers," just a goal of surviving as a business and having reasonable behavior by people outside the door. How dare we dismiss outright the concerns of the merchants who have come forward with valid claims. Merchants who DO speak to the problem of poverty with their wallets. So many speakers tonight referenced "kicking the panhandlers out of town." Their posters have absurd police state/martial law images. Did they really read the ordinance? No one's suggesting kicking anybody out of town or off the streets.
So maybe this particular ordinance isn't the solution but the sweeping claims of poverty being criminalized and stealth gentrification agendas are silly and unfounded. I guess you can't legislate manners and compromise, though it would be wonderful if people would be more tuned in to how their behavior affects others. This ordinance wouldn't change much. But I haven't seen the sugar sticks kids or the school camp/feed a family guy for a while, perhaps because of the rumored implementation of the ordinance?
So what is the answer? If it's seen by the "street people" as class warfare, us and them, then there is not going to be a willingness to compromise on their part. The cops are all pigs. Anyone striving to survive via retail is "the man." Their customers are "Connecticut tourists in SUV's." These are all generalizations and stereotypes of the people one might encounter downtown. We are all on a continuum, not on opposite sides. These are ultimately "boutique protests" and "boutique ordinances" in our precious little paradise of, for the most part, extreme tolerance.
I don't "support the ordinance" per se but it's all that's on the table right now to provoke discussion; discussion that needs to take place. I find myself more troubled by the mentality of the protesters than everything else lately, and that's interesting. I don't know what to make of it entirely except my frustration that certain people feel the need to scream platitudes, rabble rouse, and march than approach it in a more professional manner. The town has not driven them to resort to protest. They have a say and a voice if they choose to exercise it. Sure it helps publicize their viewpoint quite well given ample local media coverage, but it also diminishes credibility, hampers a less confrontational approach. It also drowns out what might be a very different point of view held by people who are busy with their lives and supporting families or even just themselves that aren't in a position to stage a protest or a campaign to make their views heard.
I think the cops are just trying to answer to the complaints from constituents who have invested their money and lives into downtown Noho; investors who are not owners of stock in a company, but in a town; of real businesses and real risk. These are people who help define downtown which is, like it or not, first and foremost an area of commerce. This is what "Main Street" is in this country. Without commerce, there would be no downtown. Parks and human services alone do not constitute a thriving interesting downtown. Victim is as victim does. The truly needy folks with real disabilities and insurmountable problems are easy to distinguish and I help them out often with far more than spare change. The business owners are looking for a little wiggle room from the people who provide little to the town but their bottomless needs, endless demands, and cries of injustice. What have YOU done for your town lately?
I stay out of downtown more due to the parking problems.
Downtown felt so friendly and welcoming ten years ago, when a parking fine was $5 and an hour was a dime.
Now I feel like an unwelcome visitor in my own town. It feels more like an outdoor mall sometimes than a downtown, catering only to wealthy outsiders.
I go to Florence now when I want to shop because they still sell things people need and the atmosphere feels friendly. Like Northampton used to be.
Fix the parking. We will come. Homeless are not keeping me away anyway, but the lack of care for each other in the community is.
If someone is going to
If someone is going to attack me in order to get a dollar, they belong in jail. I could care less about a fine. If they invade my personal space or threaten or attack me (as I know is happening in downtown, which is why we don't go there), something more than just a fine should happen.
Fining panhandlers? How stupid can you get?
How is a person who can't afford to eat or live indoors going to pay a $100, $200, $300 dollar fine.
This is not only mean-spirited, cruel and ugly, it is also stupid.