[Peace-discuss] [ucprogressives] [Discuss] Don't discriminate against the poor: Picket @ 6pm Council mtg @ 7pm

Tue Aug 2 09:53:09 CDT 2011

I am aware that I have had differences with many of you on this particular ordinance.  Whatever you think of where we wound up, we wound up in a much better place than we would have without the input and participation of the progressive community.  So you can beat me up all you want, but progressives should celebrate that your (our?) participation made a big difference in a good direction. (I have sometimes been called "progressive".)  I happen to think we wound up in about the best possible place, given the competing rights that were at issue.

All labels aside, I hope that you will join with me in pressing for serious consideration of something I talked about last night and began talking about earlier in the process, and that is an automatic referral to an appropriate social service agency for anybody who receives a warning under this ordinance.  This should provide an advocate for the violator within the system at the earliest possible time.  I was moved to think about this when researching similar ordinances in other cities, and found that the Philadelphia ordinance has this feature.  This coordination of law enforcement and social service delivery appears to have been successful on both counts; i.e., reducing aggressive solicitation and also providing mental health, substance abuse, etc. services to people who needed them but were not previously in the system to provide them.  It has not completely solved those problems (given the larger problems in society, no municipal ordinance could), but it seems to have alleviated them significantly.

A big problem is money.  Social service agencies are stretched very thin these days, and a system such as I am suggesting would cost something.  But Urbana is aware that we (all, Urbana, Champaign, Illinois, etc) must do better at funding social services, so it is a good time to put this concept into the mix of things to be considered, in my opinion.

Sincerely,

Eric Jakobsson

Alderperson, Ward 2, Urbana 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danielle Chynoweth" <chyn at ojctech.com>
To: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Cc: "Court Watch" <announce at communitycourtwatch.org>, "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, ucprogressives at lists.ucimc.org, "C-U Citzens for Peace and Justice" <discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 6:37:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ucprogressives] [Discuss] Don't discriminate against the poor: Picket @ 6pm Council mtg @ 7pm

John said: 
As for assault and battery, it may be that they're defined differently in the law, and it may be that they're felonies. Perhaps the Urbana City Council wants to differentiate aggressive panhandling and make it a less serious offense than assault and battery. 

My response: 
Assault and battery are city as well as a state offenses. If charged as a CITY offense, it carries a fine and no criminal record. 

- danielle 

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:03 PM, John W. < jbw292002 at gmail.com > wrote: 

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Danielle Chynoweth < chyn at ojctech.com > wrote: 

Dear friends and neighbors, 

Council will be discussing the anti-panhandling ordinance again TODAY Monday, July 25th. 

I just received word that there will be an informational picket at 6 pm opposing the bill outside council chambers. The council will meet at 7 pm and will take public input at that time. 

After hearing from dozens of opponents and receiving a petition with 300+ signatures, council is now divided on whether to kill the bill or make revisions. 

The latest version would ban aggressive panhandling, panhandling in a group of two or more, and panhandling near an ATM or bank or on private property if asked not to or a sign is posted. 

See the revised ordinance here: 

http://urbanaillinois.us/sites/default/files/attachments/ordinance-2011-07-099.pdf 

I continue to oppose this ordinance despite revisions for two reasons: 

1) The city has not yet answered how existing city laws against assault, battery, trespassing, and loitering are inadequate addressing the concerns. 

As for assault and battery, it may be that they're defined differently in the law, and it may be that they're felonies. Perhaps the Urbana City Council wants to differentiate aggressive panhandling and make it a less serious offense than assault and battery. Trespassing and loitering may also be defined differently, and not fit all of the situations the City Council is trying to address. 

Just my three cents, 

John Wason 

2) Any ordinance they pass must separate aggression from asking for money. Targeting panhandling makes the law clearly about discriminating against the poor rather than merely stopping aggression. Laws should apply to everyone regardless of their economic status. 

Please show up Monday at 400 S. Vine St at 6pm to join the picket and 7pm to voice your ideas, concerns and ensure accountability on a vote. Take a yellow slip at the back of the chambers, fill it out to speak or register your opposition, and turn it into the city clerk. 

thanks! 
Danielle 

_______________________________________________
ucprogressives mailing list
ucprogressives at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/ucprogressives

-- 
Eric Jakobsson, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, Department of Biochemistry, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology
Center Affiliate, National Center for Supercomputing Applications
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3261 Beckman Institute, 505 N. Mathews Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801
jake at ncsa.illinois.edu  
ph 217 390 7024  skype ejake1938
"Hold fast to the spirit of youth, let years to come do what they may"--Inscribed on a mantelpiece, John Jay Hall, Columbia University
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"--Theodosius Dobzhansky