http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/orl-forumword21_1207sep21,0,3475971.story
Stuart: Let's look for real solutions
Robert F. Stuart
(published) September 21, 2007
For the past few weeks, the city of Orlando has been involved in the continuing issue of panhandling. I, for one, welcome these types of discussions as they lead to a more clear understanding of the roles of our local government and of our citizens.
Panhandling, like many other similar issues, has people expressing their opinions. Based upon my experience as a city commissioner and director of an established, downtown outreach ministry, let me share some facts.
First, many continue to say that panhandling is directly linked to homelessness. While many who engage in panhandling may be homeless, we simply don't have any sound analysis of the population of panhandlers. It is true that the best homelessness research reports that as many as 8 percent of our homeless population have engaged in panhandling within the past 30 days. As to the hard numbers of panhandlers who are homeless, we simply don't know.
Second, panhandlers don't make a lot of money. According to some similar research in Pittsburgh and other Midwestern cities, most panhandlers make at the most $70 per week in this activity. Most of us have heard the stories of those who claim to have made $30,000 or more, tax-free, panhandling. While these stories may be true, they are, at best, very rare and hardly a sound example on which to develop public policy.
Third, givers need other alternatives. Since we know that panhandling, or begging as others have called it, will continue, it seems practical that our local communities provide alternatives for those willing to give. In places like Pittsburgh, Memphis and even Winnipeg, local downtown communities have advertised to "donors" about those in need and offered options, such as giving to local agencies willing to help. Drying up these resources from donors will have a significant impact on those looking to take advantage of our citizens and visitors through panhandling.
As I reviewed this issue, it became apparent to me that the city has ample ordinances already on the books to curtail aggressive panhandling. Prior to the current ordinance's passage, it was already unlawful in the city of Orlando to panhandle in public parks and venues, on private property without owner permission, within parking lots and garages, and in downtown -- outside the blue boxes -- anytime, day or night.
Here's my singular concern. If we are to become an even better city, then we must look for a real solution to all of the issues surrounding panhandling by seeking other alternatives to complement the enforcement portion of the equation. Discipline and order require both the "hammer" of enforcement and the "carrot" of viable alternatives for those who choose to donate in this way.
I'm buoyed by the public and private comments of Mayor Buddy Dyer and my fellow commissioners, Patty Sheehan and Daisy Lynum, who have each encouraged the city to explore better alternatives for our donors.
Let's take this opportunity to develop similar ideas to other great cities, and create a downtown environment that will be a great place to live, work and play for our community.
Robert F. Stuart is the Orlando city commissioner for District 3.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I applaud Commissioner Stuart's "no" vote on the City's new panhandling ordinance although i don't agree with all his comments.
i believe that more services should be provided to the homeless; however, i see no reason that individuals should actively be discouraged (as Commissioner Stuart suggests) from practicing charity and compassion by giving alms to presumably homeless panhandlers. (Let's not forget that such interactions may rise to the level of constitutionally protected free speech.) Local homeless service providers do indeed need more help so they can help more people, but to say that money should be given to them rather than to individual panhandlers is a blanket presumption that the circumstances of each individual panhandler are the same and that, in all cases, they would be better off getting assistance from a homeless service provider rather than an individual giver. That's the sort of paternalism that the homeless don't need and that strips them and their givers of dignity and autonomy.
Commissioner Stuart's common-sense stance that "the city has ample ordinances already on the books to curtail aggressive panhandling" is gratifying. i am tired, though, of hearing the incessant complaints about so-called aggressive panhandling. The concept of what constitutes "aggressive" panhandling as oppossed to "polite" panhandling is a subjective one. Public policy should be based on hard facts not undocumented anecdotes repeated endlessly and amplified in the media without verification. One way to determine whether panhandling actually is a "public safety threat," the justification for the ordinance, and a nuisance would be to examine how many panhandling encounters lead to verifiable criminal complaints for offenses such as assault and battery. We notice that none of the supporters of the new ordinance, such as Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, City Commissioner Patty Sheehan or police Chief Michael McCoy were forthcoming with such statistics. That seems like a glaring omission since such figures would have bolstered their case for the ordinance. This makes us wonder if their real goal wasn't protecting public safety so much as turning downtown Orlando into a Disney World-like enclave by ridding it of smelly, unsightly homeless people. Such economic and class-based apartheid is unconscionable and probably unconstitutional and does not befit a community that wants to be known as a "world class" city.
--Ben Markeson
(these comments represent my personal opinions, not an official position of S.T.O.P.)
Post a Comment