Column: I.C. panhandling ordinance a solution looking for a problem

Let's call Iowa City Councilors' vote to limit panhandling on the city's Pedestrian Mall what it is: An effort to scrub the place of undesirables.

If it were anything else, more councilors would have given some clue that they listened Monday night when a half-dozen community members offered as many good reasons not to impose new panhandling restrictions downtown.

First off is the little matter of free speech - solicitations are protected under that Constitutional right. But citizens offered other compelling reasons. Too bad the majority of council members didn't appear to hear them.

Darcy Bennett, Executive Business Director for Dance Marathon, a benefit for the University of Iowa Children's Hospital, pleaded with the council. She argued that putting a squeeze on solicitors would be a $30,000 ding in that group's $1 million annual fight against childhood cancer, and could prevent some students from participating.

Sarah Clark also spoke against the ordinance change, saying Iowa City's diversity and vitality was one of the reasons she moved there from San Francisco this past year.

Garry Klein called the ordinance change a solution in search of a problem - pointing out that aggressive panhandling already is illegal under current ordinance.

And one after another, citizens said they felt perfectly safe when passing by panhandlers in the downtown mall.

Council member Regenia Bailey told them she does, too, but her parents don't. “I don't want them to feel unsafe,” she said.

But there's a big difference between feeling uncomfortable and actually being unsafe. And as it's been pointed out to councilors several times by now, police haven't cited a single panhandler for violating the existing Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance since it was passed years ago.

If I told councilors that I felt unsafe because of sidewalk sales - after all, dangerous people could be lurking underneath those clothes racks - would they restrict or ban those hot summertime deals? Nah, that would be silly.

Same here. Only difference is that the people who are affected by this ordinance are easier to pick on than those downtown business owners who are asking for panhandlers' rights to be restricted.

As Council member Mike Wright (the lone dissenting vote on this issue twice running) said back in March: “I think if we had people in designer suits standing on the corners asking for money, this would be a very different discussion.”

That's clear, and it's disappointing.

More disappointing, still, that no other council member has the guts to call it what it is.

Comments: (319) 339-3157; jennifer.hemmingsen@gazcomm.com