CR Council backs away from panhandling limits, outlook smudgy

Cedar Rapids City Council members sat at the intersection of Panhandling Crackdown Parkway and Status Quo Drive on Tuesday evening.

If they had been holding a sign, it would have said: 'Our proposed panhandling ordinance is too broad. We need a narrower one. Any help appreciated. God bless.”

They were presented with a proposal touted mainly as a strike against 'aggressive solicitation” in public areas, but would have gone further. It prohibited any panhandling within 100 feet of stoplight intersections, within 50 feet of ATMs, bank entrances or exits, at bus stops, on buses or in the terminal.

Cedar Rapids police Capt. Steve O'Konek made the department's case for the ordinance, contending that panhandling is a traffic safety issue and spawns dozens of police calls for fights, drunkenness, animal welfare, traffic issues and trespassing on private property. Without an ordinance, he said there's not much police can do in most cases. Most people who call in complaints leave before the police arrive.

'The conduct is what we're going to regulate, not speech,” O'Konek said, alluding to the fact that courts across the country have struck down panhandling laws on the grounds that they restrict free speech.

And yet, the council passed, instead sent the whole issue back to its public safety committee. From there, who knows? Like so many of those panhandlers' cardboard signs, the council's directions are sort of smudgy and tough to read.

'I think this ordinance is too broad,” said Council member Kris Gulick, who also told a harrowing tale of 'squealing tires, swerving cars” caused by panhandling on the Collins Road offramp at Center Point Road. 'Someone's going to get killed,” he said.

'I think we need the safety part of it. But I do think it goes too far,” said Council member Monica Vernon, who told of the time in college she was stranded at the Bismark, N.D., airport after leaving the keys to her car in Cedar Rapids.

'So I immediately began to solicit,” said Vernon, who found a kindly rancher willing to loan her $100. She later paid him back.

Other members also called overreach. Ralph Russell questioned the proposal's breadth vs. the size of the problem. Ann Poe asked if police sought input from groups who serve the poor and homeless. They had not. Pat Shey compared its uphill enforcement prospects to the city crackdown on goose-feeding. Poe and Susie Weinacht pointed to Bettendorf's ordinance as a model.

Council members Scott Olson and Justin Shields stuck up for the proposal as-is, arguing that their constituents want action. 'The issue is that the complaints are for people who are professional panhandlers,” Olson said, insisting that police need additional powers to address the problem.

So the council still wants an ordinance. Probably. But it should be narrowly focused. Perhaps just on busy intersections. Definitely on death-avoidance. And more people should be consulted.

Again, smudgy. But the council made the right call in stepping back. The proposed ordinance does go too far. The issue remains alive, but it wouldn't surprise me if it stays on the back burner for a while.

Bettendorf's ordinance requires anyone who solicits from the same roadside spot for more than three days every three months to obtain a free license valid for six months. Panhandlers who fill out a one-page application also are offered information on available services. Violations result in a six-month ban from panhandling.

The city bars panhandling at I-74 ramps during morning and afternoon commutes. Aggressive solicitation is banned, and it's unlawful to enter the travel portion of a roadway to receive a donation.

The Dispatch/Rock Island Argus took an interesting look at the Bettendorf law last fall.

Regulating the usual suspects as licensed professionals is intriguing, and might be a good compromise if the issue returns. We'll watch the council for more signs.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com