Visualizing the Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance
Map showing where panhandling would be prohibited
So I wanted to visualize what areas of Arcata would be panhandling-free zones if the city council enacts this aggressive panhandling ordinance. In it, it prohibits panhandling 20ft. away from supermarkets, retail stores, restaurants, bars, intersections, entrances and exits to pedestrian footbridges and parking lots, and bus stops, along with public parking lots, public transportation vehicles and bus parks — *cough* that was a mouth full. Now, other than bus stops, cause it was hard to determine exactly where each one is, the map displays all the areas in yellow where panhandling would be a no-go. It’s not flawless, merely estimations, and I probably forgot some places as well.
Although the ordinance is not yet enacted, it clearly has the support of all the council members except for Shane Brinton, who, in my opinion, articulated his opposition to the ordinance beautifully at the city council meeting Wednesday, despite other members cutting him off to vote for its introduction after a lengthy discussion. You can view the discussion here (scroll down to 2010 archive and click on the March 3 meeting, then click on the first item in “Old Business” to jump to the ordinance discussion).
But Shane did bring up a good point: if the objective of this ordinance is to penalize and prevent aggressive panhandling, then why prohibit it in certain areas which, as you can see on the map, includes mainly the highly trafficked areas of Arcata. It may even be interpreted in a way as to prevent hitchhikers from asking for a ride, as one could say that a “ride” is an object of value, perhaps? That’s for the courts I suppose.
So it seems to me that this ordinance is being painted as tackling a real problem while actually attempting to clear the city of street folk by severing their primary source of revenue — asking for money. And, as Alex Stillman put it, those who “give” are clearly a problem as well. Yes, the generous, good-hearted people are actually contributing to the problem. Enablers, I suppose.
Like I said before, panhandling, especially the aggressive variety, is clearly an issue in Arcata, along with homelessness and poverty, but this ordinance is merely gentrification wrapped in a nice tidy package. I would support an ordinance that only specifies “aggressive panhandling” as an offense, but as long as these blanket prohibitions are in place, I will fight it to the best of my ability and you should too. And this is mainly because it doesn’t apply to just panhandlers but anyone who asks another for an object of value in these prohibited areas (Girl Scouts, Car Wash Kiddies, Political Candidates, Can I have a Smoke! etc.).
I urge all of you to contact your council members if you either outright oppose this ordinance or merely oppose the blanket prohibitions. It only takes a few minutes to draft a letter or make a phone call.
Well put, John! It’s interesting that the Council did not think ahead in including a basic visual proposal to aid in the decision making. But, with a large portion of the council representing local business interests, it’s a no-brainer that this was passed. Jeanne(Quote) (Reply)
Thankfully, it has only been introduced. They will probably vote on it at their next meeting. so there is an opportunity to modify it or outright eliminate it before it’s enacted. Reporta(Quote) (Reply)
So if I am up in Arcata at one of the businesses on the plaza,a panhandler asks me for some money and I say no,don’t have any extra, and he punches me and breaks my nose so I go after him for assault,he can now simply counter that he was only panhandling aggressively,correct? mresquan(Quote) (Reply)
Hmm. If the ordinance was enacted as it stands, I’m pretty sure he would be charged with assault and aggressive panhandling. I don’t think he could counter anything. Did this happen to you? Reporta(Quote) (Reply)
No,just throwing out a scenario.I actually find the place to be quite peaceful and have never felt overly accosted.I just don’t understand how they can enforce this if they already can’t enforce existing laws already on the books.And as I see it now,a duo strumming guitars in front of a store at Arts Arcata can’t put out a jar for little donations as they are now also labeled as panhandlers.Seems that last night during the debate,the focus turned away from aggressive panhandlers,to all “panhandlers” in general,yet with fundraisers,potential community organizers,and generally talented artists looking to make a few extra bucks now labeled as panhandlers.If that becomes the case,Arts Arcata will take a huge hit. mresquan(Quote) (Reply)
Though I’m from SoHum, I shop Arcata occasionally. One of the most magical evenings included dinner at Tomo’s and a bagpiper playing softly while fog swirled through the dark. The bagpiper had a jar out for money and I felt that I underpaid by dropping a couple of bucks in the container. How sad to have that music possibly included in the ban. Part of the magical character of Arcata is brought out in the street musicians. I hope the council considers that aspect when making their decision.
I’ve never encountered any aggressive panhandlers there–Once in Berkeley I did but that was obviously mental illness which is not curbed by laws. I hope the council realizes that legal remedies won’t help with how the mentally ill might act. Kym(Quote) (Reply)
I’m not entirely sure whether this would affect a musician playing in one of these restricted areas. I suppose it would if they had a sign asking for donations or something. But it would be unfortunate to even have to worry about that.
A report I read by the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing actually suggested that cities encourage musicians to go into troubled areas as to contrast someone asking for money but also providing a service (ambiance) to someone just asking and not providing something. Reporta(Quote) (Reply)