The No-Beg Zone

*Kudos to Councilman Shane Brinton for being the only voice of reason on the council and voting no on this ghastly ordinance.

Arcata has always been, in my experience, a community where people care about one another and, within reason, give as much as they can, whether it be their time or money. So it’s with great pain that I have to write this post, because I didn’t think the city council had it in them to enact an ordinance so utterly discriminatory and draconian that I believe it will forever tarnish the image of this town.

Some of you may think I’m exaggerating, but the council’s introduction of the “Aggressive Panhandling” Ordinance tonight is nothing more than a heavy-handed solution to an enduring and complex problem here — excessive, and at times, aggressive panhandling by a short-sighted number of street folk who have little, if any, respect for this community.

As you can already tell, my views on this are mixed, but I ultimately chose to oppose this ordinance for two major reasons: it blatantly targets a segment of the population for the unspoken goal of pushing the “undesirables” away from the most heavily trafficked areas (Downtown, Northtown, HSU) and violates the first amendment rights of all people by criminalizing and prohibiting a person’s speech (panhandling has been upheld in the courts as free speech).

For those unfamiliar with this ordinance, it does two major things: first, it creates a new crime for Arcata, enforceable within the city limits — aggressive panhandling — which is defined, among other things, as somebody using threatening verbal language, making physical contact, obstructing traffic, or continuing to solicit after refusal before, during, or after engaging in a panhandling action. Reasonable, but highly subjective, especially the part about a “reasonable person” feeling fear; then there is the more troublesome component in my opinion, the one that obviously caters to the business interests in this town, flat out prohibiting any form of panhandling in certain locations.

Although I’m not sure when this law will be enacted, when it is the following places will now be no-beg zones:

• Within 20ft of a check cashing business, ATM, banks
• Within 20ft of the entrance to a supermarket, retail store, restaurant or bar
• Within public transportation vehicles, or within 20ft of a bus stop or bus shelter
• Within public parking lots or structures and within 20ft of such entrances
• All “footbridges” and within 20ft of entrances to said footbridges
• and, 20ft within an intersection

In other words, pretty much everywhere in town except for parks and residential neighborhoods, and maybe a few alleys.

Now, I know how we all feel about getting asked for money all the time. And I know it has become excessive and downright annoying, and that businesses have suffered, people badgered, and a whole host of issues have bled from this one. But seriously, this is not the right way to approach this problem. I don’t even know if it’s practical to enforce this law fully considering the amount of police and the amount of panhandlers, but I sure hope our cops don’t get tied up ticketing or arresting street folk over this law, especially when people are getting the shit kicked out them and stabbed all across town.

And this issue is too emotionally charged to the point where even logical, good-hearted people have had enough of it and don’t care what the solution is, as long as it gets these people off their backs. That’s a bad reason to support anything (do I even have to bring in the Patriot Act). When we react emotionally, we tend to not see the bigger picture or understand the possible consequences of our actions. But I know, from experience, that this law has the potential to be abused. This law is probable cause for police officers to search and investigate individuals engaged in this action. It’s the “upstanding citizen” vs the “street person.” It’s sad, real sad that it had to come to this.

But I have no other solutions to offer, unless there were an infinitesimal amount of money at my disposal, or the will in this community to make some dramatic changes to their life. And to be fair, many constructive engagements between the city and those on the streets have crumbled. But ultimately this ordinance could have been avoided if there was more respect, by those with jobs and houses, and by those on the streets. We are all to blame.

Below is a letter I sent to the city council since I had to work and couldn’t attend the meeting. I really hope this law doesn’t come back to bite us in the ass. I really do.

My name is John Osborn. I’m a hard-working resident of Arcata who spends 40 hours of his time a week working to pay the bills. I’ve lived in this community for seven years and in that time I’ve been asked for money on the streets more times then I can count. But it was a rare day to run into somebody who, after I refused to give them money or food, acted in a matter that I would loosely consider aggressive.
Although I understand that there are members of this community who feel intimidated or outright disgusted by the amount of panhandling that occurs in our community, I do not, in anyway, support any ordinance that would attempt to punish those who truly need the assistance of the community to survive because a few malcontents treat others with such disdain when refused money or whatever it may be.
For one, how any city council or government, representing the will of the community and operating under our constitutional republic, could ever consider passing an ordinance that so blatantly targets a certain segment of the community and dares to restrict anyone’s first amendment right to free speech is both troubling and outright ludicrous. The whole point of free speech is to allow for voices that are not popular, and if someone asks for help, whether they need it or not, it is their right to ask.
On that note, this law is incredibly subjective even within the points that defines panhandling as “aggressive.” I can foresee that this law could be abused by those who merely want the “riff-raft” to move on. I mean seriously, when the cops get called to enforce this law, who are they going to believe: the word of the person who feels violated or the word of the street person. Sadly, I think we know the answer.
And that brings me to my final concern. As the council is well-aware, there has been an upsurge in the amount of violent crimes in this community, whether they are the recent assaults at HSU or the numerous stabbings in the Downtown area. I think it would better serve our community to have our law enforcement personnel focus their energy preventing, and responding to, these violent crimes rather than targeting some person on the corner who just wants a dollar but happens to act in a way that could be misconstrued as aggressive.
To demonize and attack a group of people because of the actions of a few is not a valid reason to punish the whole. Understand that there are people that are legitimately in need of help in this community, who swallow their pride and ask for a handout, and there are those who really don’t need help and live on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Do not blur those lines. Even if other cities have passed similar ordinances, this community is better than this ordinance. If passed, this ordinance could open the floodgates to costly lawsuits and possible blanket abuse by community members and, perhaps, law enforcement.
There is a problem, but let’s figure out a more productive solution than this. Oh, if you haven’t realized, I oppose this ordinance, not as an apologist for those on the streets, but as a hard-working member of this community who gives when he can.
Thank you.