Yesterday afternoon I finally had a chance to see the wording of the ordinance.
Nice to see that the staff of the Tennessean sees it the way so many of us who work on the street with my brothers and sisters do.
With regard to the stance of the Downtown Partnership on this matter, I've got a lot of respect for Tom Turner and his staff. I have defended him here a number of times when he's endured some unpopular criticism. I know he's got a tough job to do and there's a lot of acrimony and ill will towards him at times from members of my own profession. I know too that he is responding to an overwhelming call for action on this issue by those who make up his constituency and I understand his need to advocate appropriately, but this time, I have to respectfully disagree with Tom and the DTP. I do hope they would consider re-examining their stance on this particular ordinance. At the very least, I would hope they could wait long enough to get some good data on the impact of their initial campaign started back in July before the community contemplates adding another law to the books, especially a law that has such broad and vague language in it.
It should also be pointed out that New York's "different approach" mentioned here by the Tennessean occurs fairly regularly here in Nashville by concerned business owners and citizens. This was, after all, a central point of the informational awareness campaign on aggressive panhandling started by the Downtown Partnership back in July, 2007.
Plain and simple, I think Hunt's ordinance is a bad one because of both the way it is written and the fact that it's redundant.
As I mentioned yesterday, he's done his homework in trying to address the Constitutional issues, but I don't think he's done it well enough and there are parts of that ordinance that appear to trample civil rights. We've got no hard numbers on the true scope of aggressive panhandling and even the Downtown Partnership recently agreed that there are already enough laws on the books to address the problems associated with aggressive and intimidating behavior by anyone.
I'm a realist enough to know that when enough people start clamoring for action for a perceived problem, someone is going to step up to the plate and take some. I understand too that when community members become scared to walk down the street, thats a real problem. But the community did began to address this aggressive panhandling issue back in July, when the DTP launched their campaign. The issue now should be one of awareness and interdiction within the current scope of our laws. I just don't feel that we need yet another law that is specifically targeting the Homeless under the guise of controlling a narrow, easily identified type of behavior that Mr. Hunt himself has acknowledged we don't even know how many Homeless actually participate in themselves. I could be wrong. But I don't have any baseline besides the DTP's surveys. While they are informative and certainly provide insight into how the businesses and residents feel, I can't just use them to come to conclusions.
On that note, I'm increasingly bothered by the lack of hard data on aggressive panhandlers. I don't have any inkling of the actual scope, or of the amount of "aggressiveness" used in some of these encounters. I've heard plenty of anecdotal information from both the community members and the Homeless themselves, but I've been unable to locate real numbers anywhere.
Anecdotally speaking, I walk and drive all over this town all day long and I've rarely witnessed aggressive panhandling. I've seen it, sure, but in hearing Mr. Hunt's description, one would think it's occurring on every street corner. Also anecdotally speaking, I've never once ran into a "squeegee man" here in Nashville. Mr. Hunt's propensity for speculation and anecdote continues to gnaw at me and I'll tell you why.
As I mentioned yesterday, because Mr. Hunt is essentially a public administrator; he knows better than most the need to buttress allegations with factual evidence. I recall vividly the demand for accurate, clean data - not anecdote or spurious figures - when I had to present reports, analyses and information to my colleagues and professors while in graduate school studying public administration. If I were to use the criteria on his work that was used on mine while working on my Masters in Public Admin, I can tell you unequivocally that he would have received an F on his Tennessean response "work." It is not my intention at all to malign Mr. Hunt here. I am merely pointing out that his arguments hold no validity when subjected to a "professional" analysis.
Ultimately, the issue boils down to one of equal treatment. I have occasionally taken stances opposite some of my advocate brothers and sisters in claiming that no one is above the law. While I have agreed with them that most of the quality of life citations that are handed out to the Homeless could be handled in a far, far, far better way, some antisocial behavior simply cannot and will not be tolerated by society, no matter how dire your circumstances. To put your foot down and demand complete acquiescence and tolerance by community members because your constituency is down on their luck is folly, especially when the behavior impacts the ability to earn a living and live a life.
The goal in America is that everyone gets equal treatment, regardless of where you are on the societal foodchain. Yes, I know that's the dream and the reality is usually different, but my point here is that Mr. Hunt cannot expect to gain the support from those who work with the Homeless when he presents an ordinance that clearly targets the Homeless. I will repeat again what I said yesterday: I understand the need for laws and am not opposed to supporting those that clearly and narrowly define their intent, so long as they have a valid purpose. But those laws must lie within Constitutional parameters, not duplicate existing laws and not unfairly target any one person or group of people. Mr. Hunt's law does not fit the criteria, nor does he have legitimate data to support the pivotal points of his arguments, at least for now.
As such, his ordinance should not be supported.
Tuesday, 12/04/07
Law would unfairly target part of Nashville population
Today's Topic: City grapples with panhandling
Our View
With a proposal to ban "aggressive" panhandling throughout Nashville, and limit all solicitations in some circumstances, the Metro Council is considering an apparently well-intentioned step that could have negative consequences for a city that takes pride in its forward-looking approach to solving urban problems.
Councilman Walter Hunt sponsored the proposed ordinance, which passed the first of three readings on Nov. 20. It defines aggressive behavior by a panhandler as blocking a person's path, touching, hurting or intimidating them, as well as providing services, such as washing windshields, without consent.
Certainly, such behavior would be deemed inappropriate by anyone. In fact, most of the above acts are already illegal under municipal codes on assault and disorderly conduct — which raises the question of why those laws are not sufficient.
In addition, the proposal would prohibit any solicitation, aggressive or otherwise, after sunset and before sunrise. Any solicitations would be banned, day or night, within 25 feet of an automated-teller machine or bank entrance, and within 10 feet of any other businesses. Musicians playing on the street for tips, however, would be exempt.
This is Music City, after all. But is it fair that only musically inclined panhandlers receive public generosity?
The deeper concern is that this proposal could be used to push a certain group of people out of the hair of merchants and law enforcement. The Nashville Downtown Partnership and Metro Police Department have put their support behind Hunt's proposal.
The councilman, for his part, seems genuinely concerned for the public, and cites cases when he felt personally intimidated by panhandlers. His statement to a Tennessean reporter that "we have to do something to at least bring attention to it" suggests the ramifications of this proposal have not been thoroughly discussed.
This law, if passed, could turn the intimidation onto homeless people who have not harmed anyone. Their mere presence near a bank, or on a street corner after sunset, could prompt their arrest.
And while blocking a person's path is clearly aggressive, is that also true of the person who merely walks up and says, "Give me a dollar"? The gray areas of this proposal are considerable.
There is no clear example for Nashville to follow — other cities across the nation have passed similar laws, with mixed results. But a discussion with a range of Nashvillians, not only business and police, but shelters and public-health officials, could provide useful information.
In New York, after panhandling bans were overturned as unconstitutional, a different approach evolved. Instead of criminalizing the homeless and indigent, merchants, business associations and neighborhood-watch groups learned to communicate with law enforcement on a regular basis. Individuals whose street behavior raised concerns were treated on an individual basis, subject to the same laws as everyone else.
It's noteworthy that Councilman Hunt chose to hold off further debate on the Metro ordinance until "after the holidays." During the season of giving, this proposal might not withstand a generous impulse.
But the proposal is a bad idea, regardless of intent. If it wants to raise its quality of life, Nashville cannot cast out an entire group of people whose only real "crime'' may be that they have nowhere to go.
Tuesday, 12/04/07
By THOMAS D. TURNER
An ordinance that would place reasonable time and place restrictions on panhandling is currently under consideration by Metro Council.
The proposed ordinance provides a common-sense approach to deter panhandlers from accosting visitors, tourists, employees and residents.
In simple terms, the proposal defines an activity that is not positive for either the community or the panhandler, and supports restriction of that activity by providing a negative consequence.
It is important to agree on how to deal with what is clearly a negative and often a hostile activity and to recognize that panhandling is not equivalent to homelessness. Not all panhandlers are homeless, and only a very small percentage of the homeless population is involved in panhandling.
The Nashville Downtown Partnership supports all efforts to provide basic necessities to those in crisis. As a community, we work to improve the quality of life, to connect people with social services to deal with addictions or mental illness, and to restore basic life skills that help break the cycle of homelessness and dependency.
On behalf of property owners, residents and businesses, the Partnership also places importance on the needs of those contributing to the sustainability of our economy.
Civil behavior, cleanliness and the vitality of the downtown business and residential communities are at the heart of our economic place in the region. In the national marketplace, we must remain competitive, and much of our advantage is based on our friendly first impression.
Every day, at least 47,000 people are at work downtown. Every year, 2.5 million visit downtown arts and entertainment venues, about 1.5 million people enjoy sporting events, and another 500,000 come for conventions. More than 3,100 people now live downtown and this number is expected to double by 2010. Each of these groups has its own expectation of our shared public spaces.
A top problem for business
The Partnership's annual Downtown Business Census shows that businesses rank panhandling as a top concern related to downtown. This year, 80 percent said panhandling negatively impacts their clients and employees. In the Partnership's annual survey of downtown residents, 70 percent listed panhandling as the element needing the most improvement.
Downtown must be a place that welcomes everyone to enjoy its sights and sounds without feeling threatened or intimidated.
The proposed legislation is a starting point to create effective and fair ways to dissuade negative activity. We must provide an acceptable response that benefits those in crisis as well as businesses, employees, residents and visitors.
