Note: This article was originally published in the Back Bay Courant, July 22, 1997.
Several weeks ago a Massachusetts court struck down a state law that made panhandling a crime. Now if someone demanding money blocks your way into a convenience store, the police are helpless. If a man stands behind you at an ATM machine, pleading for a share of your cash, there’s nothing you can do to stop him. If a beggar follows you down the street, cursing at you for having given him insufficient change, there is no recourse.
The court’s decision may have been justified on free speech grounds — the court argued the state legislation was so broadly drawn that it prohibited even peaceful begging — but the effect has left cities and towns in Massachusetts exposed.
A proposed ordinance before the Boston City Council would repair this problem and give citizens and police some real tools to control the most offensive sorts of panhandling. It’s worthwhile legislation that demands quick passage.
The ordinance has two parts. One prohibits so-called “aggressive panhandling” which includes blocking someone’s way into a store or following a person. Unlike the state legislation struck down by the Supreme Judicial Court, the ordinance is directed at behavior, not speech. Peaceful begging is still allowed; harassment of citizens is not.
The legislation also prohibits panhandling in certain zones. For example, the current draft of the legislation prohibits any panhandling in or around ATM machines. This makes sense. ATMs are a place where people can feel particularly vulnerable.
This type of restriction is good, but the number of zones covered should be expanded. For example, Los Angeles recently passed a similar ordinance that prohibits panhandling around bus stops or at the entrance to retail stores. Boston should go in this direction, which is one reason why the Council, after one hearing on the ordinance, is working with police to modify the legislation.
The ordinance has opposition, however. The opposition stems from our ongoing discomfort over the issue we call “homelessness.” Anti-panhandling legislation is interpreted as hurting the homeless and decried by a number of people as cruel and uncaring.
Hardly. First, panhandlers and the homeless are not synonymous. Not all homeless panhandle — indeed, most don’t. Similarly, not all panhandlers are homeless. Many simply see it as a way to earn a living; indeed, it is troubling when one considers that the panhandler outside of a Christie’s or a Store 24 is probably earning more than the hardworking clerk within.
Moreover, there is an absurdity to arguing that letting homeless people panhandle is somehow a humanitarian gesture. What homeless people need is medical assistance, jobs, help in making the transition back to normal society, food and a place to sleep. They don’t need people pretending to help them by consigning them to the role of beggars, something that may salve the consciences of some but actually helps very little.
Finally, cities like Boston have a right — indeed, a duty — to enhance the quality of their citizens’ lives. Refusing to set public standards of behavior and failing to control aggressive panhandling tells residents, tourists and workers that their rights are not respected and that they are not wanted. If we cannot make people comfortable living, working and visiting a city, they will go elsewhere.
Do ordinances like the one Boston is considering work? The answer, based upon the experience of many other cities and towns, is yes. Ordinances like this are self-enforcing. Police in areas with these laws do not need to start arresting or fining panhandlers by the dozens. Rather, by being moved along, panhandlers are encouraged to change their behavior. Laws like these work by establishing standards of acceptable and unacceptable public behavior, standards that ultimately create a more civil and more livable city.