Targeted Intimidation to end Aggressive Panhandling?

by Glenn Hefley

--Tacoma, WA

Last year Tacoma passed a blanket law against panhandling and public sales of any kind in any public area. This cover-all law makes no distinction between the guy asking for a quarter to the Girl Scout Selling you cookies in front of the supermarket.

Kim Gerhardt, the assistant city attorney who drafted the law stated, "The ordinance is absolutely blind, if it's in a public place, it would be subject to the ordinance." as if this were a selling point. Perhaps it should be remembered that Justice should be blind; Laws should know exactly what they are targeting.

The law, which is enforcable from "dust" to "dawn", prohibits asking for handouts within 15 feet of many common areas: bus stops, ATMs, pay phones, self-service carwashes and gas pumps. Soliciting isn't allowed at intersections and freeway ramps, or anywhere on private property without the owners' permission. And it forbids approaching people for money as they enter or exit vehicles. The penalty is up to 90 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines.

"We were particularly targeting areas where it was reasonable to assume people felt intimidated," Gerhardt said.

My question here is "who felt intimidated? The solicitor or the subject of solicitation?" When blanket laws such as this are passed and enforced, the only reason they last anything like a year is when those who they are subjugating have no voice. If you started arresting politicians at the public park for asking for donations (basically panhandling on a larger scale, but it is a "blind law" right?), those laws would be changed quickly.

The law may be blind, but the instruments of enforcement are not. Something Gerhardt is either not aware of, or all too aware.

So donation signs on billboards next to freeway exits and intersections would also be subject to this law, correct?

The criminalization of the homeless and poor is becoming big political business, and it is both a sad look at our deteriorating perspectives and means which creates the ends it pretends to help.

While I'm not an advocate of straight-out hard-sell panhandling, I am all for the sales of newspapers such as the "Real Change" publication which allows the homeless and poor to sell copies and keep the money they make. This to me is called "Sales", if you don't like what is being offered, then you don't buy it, as with any other sales. And isn't sales what the United States is based on?

So, with laws, we strip from those with nothing the only sales job they might qualify for; with targeted intimidation we press him in the position of desperation... I'm just guessing here, but wouldn't that force him to quit asking for change and start demanding a wallet?

Tacoma's ordinance has answered the complaints of downtown businesspeople who were tired of aggressive pleading from transients, police spokesman Mark Fulghum said. Since the ordinance went into effect, he said, police have logged fewer complaints about aggressive panhandling. -- I wonder if a good portion of this drop in complaints is the realization, of a less blind and more human populace, that in filing the complaint you are sending a homless person to jail for 90 day and subjecting him to a $1000 fine?

Gerhardt said. "My impression is that it has been effective. There's been a dramatic decline, especially in panhandling directed at traffic." -- Impressions are all well and good, but I would imagine are subject to how many different routes Gerhardt takes to the office and back.

While Gerhardt and Fulghum might be able to report that this blind law has lowered the instances of aggressive panhandling in Tacoma (whether based on the dubious accuracy of impression and beat-cop logs, or something more substantial)... during the last year (2006) of the new law's enforcement, Tacoma has experienced a 3.8% increase in violent crime.