The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

I am concerned that "ticketing" people for "unacceptable" behavior will criminalize what is not criminal. If it were, there are laws which the police could enforce. What will happen when troublesome people cannot pay their fines or when they refuse treatment programs or the programs are full, especially in this time of mental health funding cuts? Conceivably, could someone go to jail at the cost of $130 per day for failure to pay a $100 ticket for something that is not a crime? This is what is happening in other cities where police - privatized and otherwise - are ticketing people for their behavior.

I ask the City Council to reject the proposed ordinance and seek a less punitive and more constructive response. I encourage others to contact their councilors and tell them this is not the Northampton we want.

Lois Ahrens
Northampton
Source URL: http://www.gazettenet.com/2008/12/11/panhandling-law-part-effort-sanitize-city

Here is the editorial in the Gazette:
In Our Opinion: Protecting the public
By Daily Hampshire Gazette
Created 12/03/2008

There continue to be concerns about Northampton's proposal to discourage aggressive or threatening panhandling in the downtown but, while work remains to be done on the plan over the next few months, it still has merit and ultimately ought to be adopted at least on a trial basis.

The proposal was prompted by complaints from downtown merchants as well as local residents who say that the aggressive behavior of some panhandlers has made them feel uncomfortable or worried about their own safety. Northampton Police Chief Russell Sienkiewicz also believes aggressive panhandling has become more of a problem in recent years.

It is, indeed, a challenge to craft panhandling regulations that pass constitutional muster; some critics have suggested that any solicitation regulations are a violation of free speech rights.

The city, though, has taken a different approach by treating aggressive panhandling as a public safety issue. In addition, the plan is not an outright ban; it simply attempts to bring some order to a longstanding problem and would apply equally to charitable groups that also solicit for contributions on the city's sidewalks.

In addition to banning panhandling at night, the proposal would say where it could take place downtown, spelling out the required distance a solicitor would have to stand from certain buildings. Solicitation, for example, would be prohibited within 15 feet of any bank ATM, pay phone, parking pay box, public toilet or bus stop. It would also prohibit the use of violent or threatening behavior or language, unwanted touching or attempts to block a pedestrian's passage on the sidewalk, while also targeting fraudulent appeals for money. Fines would range from $50 for an initial offense up to $300 for fourth and subsequent offenses.

The City Council's Committee on Public Safety heard arguments for and against the proposal at a recent hearing. Afterwards, the committee asked city officials to recraft some of the wording and return with a reworked proposal that could be considered in January or February. The plan ultimately requires the City Council's approval.

As the plan works its way to the council, it would be worth adding a clause requiring a review one year after the ordinance is implemented to determine whether changes need to be made. The concerns raised by the plan's critics have been helpful in the process but, in our opinion, there's no reason not to proceed with the ordinance. Given the work done so far, it appears the city can initiate a ban on aggressive panhandling that is both constitutional and effective in protecting the public's safety and providing a welcoming atmosphere downtown.
Daily Hampshire Gazette © 2008 All rights reserved
Source URL: http://www.gazettenet.com/2008/12/03/our-opinion-protecting-public