This article originally appeared in the January 20, 1998 edition of the Back Bay Courant.

They were referring to an ordinance passed by the City Council and supported by the Mayor that banned "aggressive panhandling" in Boston. It came before the Council seven days before Christmas, a few days after a census conducted by the city showed a slight rise in the number of homeless on the street. It was a seemingly cruel holiday present to the poor and dispossessed.

A confession. I was a proponent of the new ordinance and was involved in its drafting. An explanation is in order.

Last May the state's Supreme Judicial Court struck down a state law that made it a crime to panhandle. The court said the law was overbroad and impinged on free speech concerns.

That decision left a hole in the law; there were literally no rules that spoke to whether or how panhandling should be treated by the police or the courts.

At the same time, residents, storeowners and visitors were complaining bitterly about the wave of panhandlers that sometimes seem to occupy the city. For example, a panhandler blocks the entrance to Christy's, refusing entry until he has been given some change. Another camps outside of an ATM at night and then follows a woman who has just gotten some cash until she, too, hands some money over. A tourist is accompanied down the street by a man who refuses to take no for an answer and is cursing at him or her for blocks.

These behaviors are more than just frightening and intimidating to those who are accosted. They corrode the city as well.

Political scientists have written for years about "urban decay." Urban decay is what happens when, through neglect and inaction, we allow our cities to deteriorate. The deterioration becomes a vicious downward spiral: as things get worse off, people leave, stores close and visitors stop coming. That, of course, provokes a further round of deterioration which then causes more people to exit.

For the last four years, Boston's government has focused on reversing that decay. Part of that has meant cleaning up the streets: removing graffiti, filling potholes, planting trees and putting in decent lighting. It has also meant insisting that residents of the city be treated with the same degree of respect to which residents of the suburbs are accustomed.

No one can deny that living in a city poses challenges. Everything is more expensive, space is tight, it's noisier, it's more frenetic, and more people are competing for a limited set of resources. That is part of the excitement of city living that attracts residents; it's also the frustration. No one living in Dover, for example, worries about parking his or her car. In Boston it's an obsession.

These problems are understood. What is not understood — what should not be accepted — is that city residents should live in fear of harassment and intimidation.

It is to this point that the ordinance speaks. The law does not ban panhandling. But it does lay out clear guidelines about what is and is not acceptable behavior. For example, blocking doorways is unacceptable. Standing outside of an ATM is unacceptable. Following someone down a street after being told no is unacceptable.

Will it work? Other cities that have adopted similar ordinances report it does. It doesn't work because aggressive panhandlers will be deterred by $50 fines. It works because it establishes norms of behavior —as does other 'quality of life' legislation — and people, including panhandlers, adhere to those norms.

A final note. Advocates for the homeless don't believe that panhandling is the cure for the problem. If the homeless you see on the street prick your conscience — and they should — don't try to salve that wound by throwing a few quarters into a hat.

What the homeless need is food, a place to stay, medical attention and help making a transition to work. If you really want to do some good, volunteer at the Pine Street Inn, give money to social service agencies like Rosie's Place or SOME (So Others May Eat) or urge your church to open up space for a hot meals program. Those actions will do a lot more good for the homeless — and for the city — than a handout ever will.