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

[Laurie Solomon]

As an opening disclaimer, I am not a resident of Urbana.  I do agree with Danielle on her two reasons for opposing such an ordinance and I am sure that there are other equally applicable reasons for opposing the ordinance.  

However, the point that I find very interesting in this and similar ordinances across the country are clauses like “...panhandling near an ATM or bank or on private property if asked not to or a sign is posted (italics mine).  The italicized phrase lumps together and fails to distinguish between truly private property, such as a residence, and quasi-public private property, such as a mall.  I think that this is a distinction that should be recognized and differentiated in any ordinance with the regulation of said quasi-public private property not being left to the discretion of the property owner but coming under the same regulation as applies to public property.  Giving the owner of quasi-public private property the right to determine who can and who cannot panhandle (or do anything else for that matter) opens the quasi-public private property up for discriminatory behavior that favors persons and groups that the owner supports and against those that they disagree with in an arbitrary and capricious manner.  These quasi-public private properties are not all that much different from restaurants and privately owned public transportation depots which under the civil rights laws could not discriminate even though they may have been private property given their quasi-public functions.  Given that the businesses that are located in malls and other quasi-public private facilities rely on interstate commerce to receive and possibly ship goods, are likely to contain governmentally regulated and licensed businesses like hair and nail salons, outlets that sell and serve liquor, places that serve food and drink, and often received some form of governmental subsidies and tax breaks or incentives when they were built (and sometimes continue to do so after they are built),  federal. state, local, and/or municipal governmental bodies have every right to impose standardized regulations on the malls and the businesses that decide to locate in them just as civil rights laws, health and sanitation codes, etc. are imposed on food service and drinking establishments.

I would say that in such quasi-public private properties, aggressive (or even non-aggressive) panhandling should be totally permitted or totally prohibited by everyone in accordance with the statutes that regulate public properties and that the owners of said quasi-public private properties should not be able to determine who can and who cannot panhandle on their properties.  

Just my two cents.

From: Danielle Chynoweth 
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:09 AM
To: C-U Citzens for Peace and Justice ; Court Watch ; peace discuss ; ucprogressives at lists.ucimc.org 
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't discriminate against the poor: Picket @ 6pmCouncil mtg @ 7pm

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. 

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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110725/fae85847/attachment.html>