Panhandling isn't about race; it's about the right to be left alone. - R. Giuliani did it in N.Y.; now Atlanta must if its downtown is to prosper.
The Augusta Chronicle had a good editorial in today's paper entitled "Getting a handle on it":
In New York, aggressive panhandling by the "squeegee men" in the 1980s and '90s led to a crackdown - and to fewer visitors being accosted.
In Atlanta in 2005, such a crackdown on panhandling is being assailed as racist - even though it's been touted by a black mayor and council member.
Cynthia Tucker, an African-American columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, says that's nonsense. And she writes of a recent run-in with a panhandler - a white one.
This isn't about race; it's about one of America's most cherished, and most endangered, rights: the right to be left alone. Panhandlers have no constitutional right, as we see it, to put the arm on downtown pedestrians or motorists. Even so, some cities have designated panhandling zones to allow it.
Regardless of how, big-city downtowns, especially those in the warm South and those that rely heavily on tourism, need to get a handle on panhandlers. Panhandlers disrupt business, discourage tourists and drag down a city's quality of life. Like Tucker - and like Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin - we simply see no problem with restricting or even outlawing panhandling on downtown streets.
Moreover, those who want panhandlers left alone are doing them no favor whatsoever. Anyone experienced in homeless issues can tell you that enabling people to live on the streets does them more harm than good.
Better to get the homeless into shelters, drug rehabilitation programs, mental health centers and, in the best of cases, jobs. Cracking down on homeless panhandlers helps everyone - no one more than the homeless.
Indeed, Atlanta is getting set to open the 24/7 Gateway Center, a homeless service center south of the downtown business district.
It can, and will, be done humanely. But it has to be done.
In New York, aggressive panhandling by the "squeegee men" in the 1980s and '90s led to a crackdown - and to fewer visitors being accosted.
In Atlanta in 2005, such a crackdown on panhandling is being assailed as racist - even though it's been touted by a black mayor and council member.
Cynthia Tucker, an African-American columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, says that's nonsense. And she writes of a recent run-in with a panhandler - a white one.
This isn't about race; it's about one of America's most cherished, and most endangered, rights: the right to be left alone. Panhandlers have no constitutional right, as we see it, to put the arm on downtown pedestrians or motorists. Even so, some cities have designated panhandling zones to allow it.
Regardless of how, big-city downtowns, especially those in the warm South and those that rely heavily on tourism, need to get a handle on panhandlers. Panhandlers disrupt business, discourage tourists and drag down a city's quality of life. Like Tucker - and like Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin - we simply see no problem with restricting or even outlawing panhandling on downtown streets.
Moreover, those who want panhandlers left alone are doing them no favor whatsoever. Anyone experienced in homeless issues can tell you that enabling people to live on the streets does them more harm than good.
Better to get the homeless into shelters, drug rehabilitation programs, mental health centers and, in the best of cases, jobs. Cracking down on homeless panhandlers helps everyone - no one more than the homeless.
Indeed, Atlanta is getting set to open the 24/7 Gateway Center, a homeless service center south of the downtown business district.
It can, and will, be done humanely. But it has to be done.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 5:00 AM
3 Comments:
I'm all for cracking down on panhandling, no doubt about it. However, the specific proposal in Atlanta is to fine a panhandler $1,000 or spend 30 days in jail. Now how is that going to decrease panhandling? Assuming that if a panhandler had $1,000 they would not be panhandling and assuming that spending 30 days in jail is going to mean a better quality of life for a panhandler (3 meals, lodging, medical care) than on the streets where is the disincentive. If I were a street person I'd think this new law was great.
I don't want to just criticize the proposal and I do want to get rid of panhandling. But I don't think this proposal is going to cut it. There are already laws on the books prohibiting agressive panhandling - is the City of Atlanta enforcing those laws? Of course not. What makes you think they would enforce yet another new law?
I knew about the $1,000 and 30 days and agree with you 100%. But posted in hopes that something can be done. It truly is a dire situation that Atlanta must correct.
You need to do your research. The $1,000 fine and up to 30 days in jail are maximums, AND they are for 3rd offenses. That means, after the police have approached a person who has panhandled, either agressively outside the tourist triangle (or whenever it is illegal, such as night time or near an ATM)...or commercially solicited inside the tourist triangle, then they can take 'Draconian' action. The first two times, the police are required to offer the panhandler services through homeless advocacy centers. I attended the hearings on this ordinance, and it is actually a much gentler way to deal with the panhandling problem...and hopefully more effective at actually resolving the cause of panhandling/homelessness. The law is moreso meant to address those career panhandlers who are NOT homeless. I do agree, though, that enforcement is key. Until our police actually get out of their cars and start enforcing the laws on the books, then whatever City Council or the Mayor do will be futile. That is the difference between NYC and ATL: the Police are paid (well) to do their jobs. IN addition, I know that the area where commercial solicitation is prohibited can not be much larger than proposed/passed, but the other parts of Atlanta should feel a little miffed that the strength of the solution to panhandling is being directed toward tourists and conventioneers. Let's see more focus on the businesses and city-dwellers.
Post a Comment
<< Home