Chuck
Cerankosky knows panhandlers. As the manager of Java’s on Gibbs Street for the
past three years, he’s used to dealing with people who use the coffee shop’s
sidewalk seating as a “market for panhandling.”
He knows many of them by name, and
he knows that many are either physically or mentally disabled. And while he
says their presence is not good for business, he doesn’t want to see them sent
to jail.
“We tell [panhandlers], ‘You
can’t ask for money out here, you’ve got to move on.’ And 90 percent of the
time that does the trick,” Cerankosky says.
Thanks to legislation passed
Tuesday, May 18, by Rochester City Council, anyone found guilty of aggressive
panhandling will be fined $15 to $250. Getting caught again may mean jail time
for up to 15 days.
City Council’s Lois Giess and Ben
Douglas sponsored the legislation — effective July 1 — in an effort to make
Rochester’s streets safer and more attractive.
“For a period of time, people
who have been panhandling have become increasingly more aggressive,” Giess
says. “My hope is that [the legislation] will lead to changed
behavior.”
And it’s “aggressive” behavior that
the legislation specifically targets: following, blocking, threatening, intimidating,
or making physical contact with a person while soliciting. Basically, any
public actions deemed aggressive by the standard of a “reasonable
person” are illegal. Also illegal: soliciting near ATMs or banks, in
municipal buildings, or in public parking garages, skyways, tunnels, and
playgrounds.
A similar piece of legislation was
shot down by Syracuse’s City Council last year.
Many people attending the Rochester
City Council vote objected to the legislation, calling it cruel and pointless.
Meanwhile, others closely tied to the successes and failures of downtown feel
it could help decrease aggressive panhandling.
When giving her take, Heidi
Zimmer-Meyer, president of the Rochester Downtown Development Corporation,
cites the $416 million being used to develop downtown, and the 335 housing
units — some of them luxury — proposed or under construction.
These sorts of investments are
“critical to stabilizing and enhancing the city’s tax base,” she
says. Aggressive panhandlers, she continues, serve only to scare away
prospective homeowners, renters, and entrepreneurs.
“This legislation is not about
penalizing people who beg for money — it’s about stopping people who ask for
money in a threatening or frightening way,” Zimmer-Meyer says.
Downstairs Cabaret Producing
Director Chris Kawolsky, who says he has struggled with aggressive panhandlers
for years, plans to put the new law to use if necessary. If it empowers the
police, he says, it will do the city good.
“If a few people are stopped by
the police, other people will get the message,” Kawolsky says.
Adam McFadden is one of two
council members who voted against the legislation (the other is Tim Mains).
Before the vote Tuesday, McFadden worried that no complete study had been done
to show the council “what these people are facing.”
“To fix a problem like
[aggressive panhandling], you need a true task force that will study why people
are begging for money and how to get people the help they need,” McFadden
says. “This legislation does not define that at all.”
Besides, the legislation was passed
too quickly, without any real public dialogue, he says.
Then there’s the issue of free
speech. Harry Murray, a professor of sociology at Nazareth College who
specializes in homelessness, calls begging an important element of public
discourse. Even if it weren’t, he says, people have a right to do it under the
First Amendment.
“Begging is a matter of speech —
it’s conveying the message that there is poverty in the country,” Murray
says.
“The idea of criminalizing
people for what they say or if they say something in the wrong place seems
fundamentally un-American and all too in keeping with the spirit of the Bush
Administration,” he says. “The poor beg — the rich advertise.”
Speaking at a press conference prior
to the vote, Monroe County Green Party Chairman Dave Atias derided the
legislation and its potential to simply displace the problem. “If [it] takes
effect, you’re still going to have people out on the street,” he said. “Pretty
soon we’ll see people along 490 with signs that say ‘will work to pay fine.'”
Atias
and other Greens issued a proposal that would create cooperative businesses in
Rochester’s poor neighborhoods. The co-ops, they said, could be funded through
grant money and supported by local neighborhood associations. Atias, with more
than a little optimism, said that hard work and a community effort could result
in employment for many of Rochester’s poor.
Like a
badly-timed punchline, Rochester’s panhandling legislation coincides
with hefty cuts to public assistance in the state budget proposed by Governor
George Pataki. Pataki’s plan includes a 10 percent cut in welfare to families
who have been on the rolls for over 10 years, and a penalty to any family not
in compliance with Welfare-to-Work rules.
“[Public assistance] is already
a meager amount of money,” says Kim Gilliland, associate director of the
Hunger Action Network of New York State. “Every bit of $10 or $20 makes a
difference [for these people].”
Pataki has also proposed further
lowering the level of public assistance for the working poor.
“These cuts are incredibly
punitive. They’re affecting the most vulnerable New Yorkers,” Gilliland
says.
This article appears in May 26 – Jun 1, 2004.
