I didn’t have time to write a lot about the passing of the panhandling ordinance last night, because I was at my weekly trivia night (we won, by the way). Now that I’ve had half a day to process it, here are my thoughts. I’m just typing as it comes to me, so this may not flow as well as some of my blog posts.
There was a very good comment left in response to the Commercial Appeal article about the ordinance. The commenter pointed out that most of the people we see panhandling Downtown every day are not poor and they are not homeless. They are professional bums who have been standing on the same corner, running the same scam, for years. Many of them are smart enough to get a regular job (and some of them would actually be quite good at sales), but that would require adhering to a regular schedule and not doing drugs and booze all hours of the day, not to mention paying taxes.
The commenter made another good point… if someone who was truly impoverished and/or homeless tried to ask people for money Downtown, he wouldn’t last long. The regulars would tell him to stop panhandling in their territory, and drive home the point with a beating if necessary. I remember when a reporter for one of the TV stations posed as a panhandler in Court Square, and that was exactly what happened. He was told he was working someone else’s turf and he needed to move on.
There were people who accused me and other Downtowners who supported the ordinance of “classism” and of being “rich Downtowners who are trying to push the inconvenient homeless into poorer neighborhoods.” Let me ask you something. If that were the case, how come I’ve never complained about the Hospitality Hub? It’s a place on Jefferson where the homeless can relax for a few hours, and can get the paperwork they need in order to apply for jobs. That place is two blocks from my building. But you know what? I’m glad it’s there. It needs to be where it is, because it’s near enough to the Union Mission and the nearby churches with soup kitchens that it’s easily accessible to those who need it. Do I mind the homeless coming into my neighborhood to use these services? Not at all. And in fact, I shouldn’t say “my” neighborhood because it’s “their” neighborhood too.
I’m glad Joe Brown’s proposed ordinance passed along with the panhandling ordinance. We do need to determine how to get nonviolent panhandlers with mental and/or substance abuse problems the help they need. However, let me point out something… in the case of substance abuse issues, it’s got to be the help they WANT as well. I’m sure there are some who would be ready to give up booze, crack and panhandling if they were shown a path to a more stable life. However, some of our professional bums down here seem to enjoy their lifestyle – boozing at 1 in the afternoon, hanging out with their buddies, intimidating passersby, making lewd comments to women. They’re only going to want a change if we make it clear that their current lifestyle won’t be tolerated any longer.
I’m also happy to see that Brown’s ordinance calls for strict prosecution of repeat offenders. One of our regular parking scammers got picked up three times in recent weeks for criminal trespass. He likes to go on the Tri-State Bank lot at Main and Beale and pose as a parking attendant. Premier Parking who runs the lot has filed an Authorization of Agency against him, making it trespassing if he’s there. In each case he was merely cited for the trespass and not taken to jail. He showed up for two of the court dates, and the charges were dismissed “nolle prosequi,” which means “the judge and the prosecutor didn’t feel like being bothered with it.” He forgot to show up for the third charge, and a bench warrant was issued and he was caught last night. I’m keeping a close watch to see if that one gets thrown out too. Judges have got to lose the attitude of “don’t waste my time with this” when it comes to these types of charges.
As for the things the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center pushed for… I AGREE WITH MOST OF THEM. We need increased access to mental health and substance abuse services for those who need them. There needs to be a free shelter for the homeless in the city. I’ve never disputed those things. But we need to do those things AND crack down on the aggressive panhandlers. The MSPJC, until their alternative proposal yesterday, had always presented the issue as an EITHER/OR, not an AND. E.g. “Instead of funding the Downtown safety patrol, put the money toward a homeless shelter.” Let’s find ways to DO BOTH.
Gonna cut myself off because I need to get a “Wednesday update” post done on my lunch break too. If I have more thoughts I’ll post ’em later.