My unsolicited opinion on CR’s proposed panhandling ordinance

As a journalist, I feel some kinship to the panhandler.

In my younger days, a couple of papers I worked for would send out cub reporters to do man/woman on the street interviews on issues of the day. So you'd walk around downtown or the local shopping mall, stop busy people minding their own business and ask them for a comment. Oh, and would you mind having your picture taken?

Most folks were polite in either accepting the offer or declining. Some folks were far less polite. A few looked downright frightened at this abrupt intrusion.

It's part of the job for we the scribbling, snapping and shooting classes to attend events and demand something from unexpecting folk in exchange for, basically, nothing. As someone who is painfully shy and hopelessly awkward, I'm less than skillful at this. But it must be done. Otherwise, how will anyone know whether people watching a parade did or did not have their spirits dampened by a passing shower?

It's unlikely any reasonable city leaders would ban this sort of newshandling, or restrict it to certain areas, or punish its purveyors for being bothersome. Such a move would be roundly criticized as an affront to free speech and free press. People who buy ink, airtime and broadband by the barrel would be up in arms.

I'm contemplating this kinship as Cedar Rapids again considers placing limits on panhandling. The latest version of a proposed ordinance is on the City Council's agenda for a public hearing Tuesday. It sounds like the votes may be there to pass it.

It first targets 'aggressive” solicitations. It would be illegal to approach, make physical contact, block a person's 'free passage,” use obscene, abusive language or continue to solicit within five feet of a person who has refused if any of those actions are meant to intimidate or cause a reasonable person to fear harm of themselves or property.

But the proposed ordinance goes further. It also prohibits any solicitation, not just aggressive panhandling, on a bus, at a bus stop or in a bus terminal. No panhandling would be allowed within 50 feet of the entrance or exit of a bank, check-cashing business or ATM without the owner's consent. Solicitations would be illegal within a controlled intersection, defined as one with stoplights, or within 100 feet of the 'outermost line” of those intersections. Median strips, roadway shoulders and controlled access highways, ones with on and offramps, also would be off limits. Violations would be a misdemeanor.

'The ordinance is not in any way intended to limit free speech activities or any other constitutionally-protected rights; however, if you are within 100 feet of a signalized intersection, it is a safety hazard,' said Cedar Rapids police Capt. Steve O'Konek in a summary of the ordinance emailed to me this week. Police contend that numerous citizens have complained about aggressive panhandling, so action is needed.

I appreciate the intent. I don't much like being asked for money by strangers, and I understand how it can be frightening, especially at night if you're alone. Although most panhandlers I've encountered have been polite - I once gave a guy $5 bucks to help get his guitar out of a pawnshop and he fell to his knees to praise me - I know that's not always the case.

And yet, I can't help but think this has more to do with relieving our discomfort than addressing an actual safety threat. We just don't want these folks hanging around. They're a bunch of scammers, right? They're annoying and aggravating. They make us think about stuff we'd rather not consider as we go about our pleasant day. Be gone.

'Beggars have always been shunned by society. We turn the other way and throw blame on the beggar,” said Mayor Ron Corbett, who opposes the ordinance, during a text message exchange I had with him this past week. He understands the police position, but also says we should think more about the panhandler's side.

'Are they veterans having a hard time getting back into society? Other failures in the social safety net?” Corbett said. . At last count, back in 2011, there were 2,423 homeless people in Linn County, with another 1,900 'at-risk” of becoming homeless. I doubt those numbers have taken a dramatic plunge in the last few years.

'I would say homelessness is a critical issue,” said Leslie Wright, vice president for community building with the United Way of East Central Iowa.

So maybe panhandlers are fraudsters. Or maybe they're living evidence of poverty, a lack of mental health treatment, persistent substance abuse, declining economic security, etc. We can banish the beggars, but these problems won't disappear. Police say the ordinance would help them to direct resources to panhandlers. But can't that be done now?

I agree with Corbett. But I also see ways the ordinance may be overly broad.

It's better, smarter and more focused than the version that surfaced two years ago. Still, in drawing all those no-begging circles around banks, ATMs and controlled intersections, the city will be setting up dozens of zones where one form of speech is no longer allowed. I believe backers when they say that's not the intention, but that's the result.

Like it or not, asking for money is a form of free speech, like asking for quotes or begging for votes. Federal courts across the country have come to the same conclusion as they've ruled on panhandling bans elsewhere.

So aggressive panhandling is the popular face of this ordinance, but all those circles are where its real effects will be felt.

And when it comes to expanding a city's police powers, there always should be a question of necessity. Isn't it already illegal for someone to grab me, block my path, yell obscenities in my face and demand money? Is there clear, compelling evidence stoplight panhandlers have made roadways less safe? And in a city where gunfire is making headlines and rattling nerves, panhandling doesn't feel like a pressing public safety concern.

If I were on the council, I'd vote no. I'm sure many of you have much different opinions. I'd like to hear them. Consider this a solicitation.

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