In The News
| News Archive
Miami acts to punish panhandlers Miami, Fort Lauderdale panhandling ordinances have marked differences Miami Bans Panhandling In Downtown (Audio) Topical Currents begins with an update on regional homelessness… |
Miami acts to punish panhandlers Top The Miami City Commission embraced a proposal to outlaw panhandling on a few downtown streets. Posted on Fri, Apr. 11, 2008 By MICHAEL VASQUEZ Miami commissioners unanimously backed a no-panhandle zone for downtown Miami on Thursday, heeding pleas from business owners and ignoring the concerns of critics. The new ordinance, which would need to be approved again next month before becoming final, would carry both fines and the threat of jail time for panhandlers caught asking for cash on specific blocks. “If we’re serious about improving downtown . . . it’s time that we start acting,” Commissioner Angel Gonzalez said. Some critics, noting that Miami already bans aggressive panhandling citywide, say the new measure is not needed. Ben Burton, executive director of the Miami Coalition for the Homeless, argued it is another example of government responding to homelessness by criminalizing it. “I don’t think we ought to blame the victim,” Burton told commissioners. “The impact will be that it will hurt people.” Mindful of the potential for legal challenges, city leaders drew narrow boundaries for the new zone. Not all of downtown is included, but some of its most important streets — Flagler Street and Biscayne Boulevard — are. The city Thursday added a block to the zone: Northeast Second Street between Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast Second Avenue. Before addition of that last block, the city estimated that the zone included 0.1 percent of Miami’s total land area. “You can obviously still panhandle in the remaining 99.9 percent,” Assistant City Attorney Veronica Xiques said. FINES OR JAIL With final commission approval next month, the maximum penalty for panhandlers would be a $100 fine and 30 days in jail for the first offense and $200 and 60 days in jail for subsequent offenses. “While these people have rights, so does everybody else,” downtown property owner Rafael Kapustin told commissioners. Other speakers complained of panhandlers harassing restaurant patrons or hovering outside bank entrances. Downtown business owners and city commissioners brushed aside the notion that the no-panhandle zone unfairly targets the homeless. Many panhandlers, they argued, are in fact not homeless. NOT JUST HOMELESS Commissioner Tomás Regalado cited residents of an assisted-living facility near his home — whose residents he said frequently panhandle — as evidence that this was not purely a homeless issue. While Thursday’s unanimous vote signaled the proposal’s chances for final approval are bright, the version commissioners see next month could end up being slightly different. A PLEA FOR REVISION The county-affiliated Homeless Trust asked for meetings with City Hall prior to final passage, and commissioners promised those meetings will happen. Though Miami has been working on its no-panhandle zone for about eight months, Trust Executive Director David Raymond said he only found out about the proposal a few days ago. One change to the proposal that Raymond plans to push: warnings for first-time offenders as opposed to immediate fines or jail time. “It puts a strike on the person’s record,” Raymond said of arresting panhandlers, “which makes it harder for them to get help and to get a job, and to get rehabilitated. So it just doesn’t seem to make sense to go that route.” Source: Miami Herald (www.miamiherald.com) Miami, Fort Lauderdale panhandling ordinances have marked differences Top By Risa Polansky Differences between a proposed Miami panhandling ordinance and an existing Fort Lauderdale measure don’t mean the local law would not hold up in court, attorneys who helped craft the legislation say. But an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer says certain provisions leave the city open to challenges. Proponents of the local law have based its legality in part on a panhandling measure in Fort Lauderdale that withstood court challenges in the late 1990s. But the Broward city’s rules differ from Miami’s, namely in enforcement provisions. Miami’s, which covers a small area of downtown and gained initial approval from commissioners last month, calls for first-violation penalties of up to 30 days in jail and fines up to $100. Fort Lauderdale’s — which is not an ordinance like Miami’s, but a park rule for a stretch of its public beach — provides only for removing an offender from the premises for 24 hours after a verbal warning. Those who return could be charged with trespassing. It makes no mention of fines or jail time. A class of homeless people challenged the Fort Lauderdale law in 1999, but an appeals court upheld it. “It should hold up in court,” said Veronica Xiques, the assistant city attorney who worked with Miami’s Downtown Development Authority to draft the law. “If we are challenged, we’ll defend it.” In advising the Downtown Development Authority on the legal strength of the proposed ordinance, city legal staff said the protection of an area’s economic vitality was at the heart of the Fort Lauderdale measure and is one that Miami could use in defense of its ordinance. The wording of Fort Lauderdale’s resolution is not as important as the ideals set through the court opinion, she said. For these and other reasons, the court determined “restrictions on begging in the Fort Lauderdale Beach area do not run afoul of the First Amendment.” Proponents of Miami’s measure say panhandling stifles economic growth downtown. To fit the “narrowly tailored” and “designated, limited” criteria, it’s designed to cover less than half of 1% of city streets.”You have to look at the law, the case that interpreted it (Fort Lauderdale’s measure),” Ms. Xiques said. “We feel the interpretation is more similar than different.” Jay Solowsky, an attorney on the development authority board, said many cities have similar panhandling laws to Miami’s. “All kind of places have them, and they are generally being upheld today,” he said. He echoed Ms. Xiques’ opinion that, though Miami and Fort Lauderdale’s rules differ, “The tests that the courts applied to determine whether or not the ordinances are constitutional are the same.” Should someone challenge the ordinance, however, the differences in enforcement provisions could be ammunition, said Rosalind Matos, South Florida staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “If you’re going to lobby against the ordinance, that’s one of the arguments you’re going to be making,” she said. “The penalties are harsh.” She noted, however, that it’s common for laws to be worded differently from city to city and that “it would be up to a judge to determine whether they’re that similar.” The local ACLU chapter has come out against the enforcement provisions laid out in the current draft of Miami’s law. “These penalties are very punitive,” said Carlene Sawyer, chair of the Greater Miami Chapter of the ACLU of Florida. “These people don’t have any money.” Local advocates for the homeless have said the same. Mr. Solowsky of the development authority said the organization has agreed to not only tweak the law to provide for warning provisions, but also to fund posted signs. Ms. Sawyer pointed out also that the ordinance in its current form does not contain a clear definition of panhandling. The ordinance now says only that “soliciting, begging or panhandling is prohibited within the downtown business district” but does not define the three terms. The wording “leaves it open to subjective interpretation by law enforcement,” Mr. Burton said. “The act of asking for money isn’t illegal.” Commissioners agreed last month to work with those concerned in preparing the ordinance for final consideration. It is scheduled for May 22. Source: Miami Today (http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/080501/story3.shtml) Bum a Dime, Do the Time Top Thirty-five. That´s roughly the number of times the word “homeless” was used during a 90-minute discussion of what countless Miami city commissioners, city officials, business owners and residents said is “not a homeless issue.” With a few revisions, commissioners approved the ordinance banning panhandling in downtown Miami´s Central Business District on second reading Thursday, effectively criminalizing the act and, some say, placing limits on free speech. The term “homeless” was often uttered by members of the city´s business sector, many of whom asked that the zone be expanded to include the blocks where their respective businesses are located and the area around the Omni mall. The ordinance was designed by the Downtown Development Authority, the city agency charged with enhancing economic development downtown. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez joked not to send the panhandlers to Allapattah, “or I´ll be coming back with another ordinance,” he said. The most influential speakers, local business leaders, showed up en masse to speak in favor of the ordinance. However, homeless advocates criticized the previous version of the measure because it stipulated jail time for a panhandler´s first offense, which outlawed homelessness. They also said it was inadequate to address the problem and would be ineffective since offenders probably wouldn´t have the money to pay the fines anyway. “The coalition believes that these types of ordinances marginalize and criminalize the poor and homeless in our community,” said Ben Burton, executive director of the Miami Coalition for the Homeless. “But no one has offered any solutions.” Although a previous incarnation of the ordinance mandated fines and jail time, first-time offenders will now receive a warning for panhandling downtown. Repeat offenders, who will be tracked via police officers, can be subject to fines of up to $100 or 30 days in jail. Those penalties double for subsequent violations. The law also specifically does not limit an alternative to penalties that police and court personnel might take advantage of: those “suspected, charged or convicted of a violation” may be referred to “treatment programs,” according to the ordinance. Commissioner Tomas Regalado warned that the DDA would have to make a commitment to create a “perception” that the ordinance is not “just another law on the books.” It´s a perception that many are worried about, albeit for different reasons. “The ACLU opposes this ordinance,” said Carlene Sawyer, chair of the Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. “This proposed ordinance criminalizes constitutionally protected speech, and it offends the fundamental rights of individuals. And that includes people who have fallen on hard times. Driving such individuals out of downtown … cannot be the way that the city of Miami chooses to deal with issues of poverty.” “We believe it is unconstitutional,” she said, reminding the commission that aggressive panhandling is already prohibited throughout the city. Commissioner Marc Sarnoff asked Sawyer if she believed it unconstitutional to license panhandlers; however, Sawyer informed him that the ACLU had already successfully challenged similar licensing measures. Despite further pleas from the ACLU, the motion to ban panhandlers passed unanimously, with District 5 Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones absent. A definition of panhandling in the ordinance had some concerned about a constitutional challenge because the wording would include anyone who asks for money in the panhandling-free zone. “If my car breaks down in downtown and I have no money in my pocket, and I [say] to someone, ‘Can I borrow a quarter to make a phone call?´ Would that be considered panhandling?” Sarnoff asked. “Under that definition, yes it would,” replied Assistant City Attorney Veronica Xiques. “And that was never the intent of the DDA.” She further noted that adding specific descriptions of panhandling to the ordinance could open the door to other constitutional challenges, since previously upheld court decisions have been based on the idea that the prohibited speech is “content neutral.” Instead, the amended ordinance will rely on a commonly accepted definition of panhandling. Ultimately, Sarnoff said the government can place “reasonable time, place and manner restrictions” on free speech. However, thanks to the First Amendment, “people can ask for help,” Sawyer said. “There is a city of Miami Beach ordinance that is currently being challenged by the ACLU,” DDA board member Jay Solowsky warned. “I point it out because we must assume that there will be a challenge to this ordinance.” The DDA also agreed to pay for signage to “provide for fair notice and warning” in the area, according to Solowsky. Ron Book spoke out in his capacity as chairman of the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust. “I don´t support panhandling, I don´t find it acceptable,” Book said multiple times. “It provides the wrong message … it sanctions homelessness.” Book also suggested installing special parking meters that would collect money that “gets allocated to homeless programs.” He added that he didn´t want to “criminalize homelessness,” and suggested penalties of either fines or jail time, but not both. Source: The SunPost (http://www.miamisunpost.com/archives/2008/05-29/052908newspanhandle.htm) Miami Bans Panhandling In Downtown Top MIAMI (CBS4) - On busy Flagler Street, in the heart of downtown Miami, one pizza shop manager says he is tired of navigating his way past the panhandlers looking for a handout at his restaurant. Daniel Siragusa says, “It drives customers away. They panhandle inside the store and it takes me two minutes to get around the counter.” It’s a complaint shared by many businesspeople and visitors to Miami, and now city commissioners are responding. In addition to a citywide ban on aggressive panhandling, they are now poised to ban it altogether on several busy downtown corridors. Stretches of Biscayne Boulevard, Flagler Street, and Brickell Boulevard would be included in what city leaders call a “no-panhandle zone.” First offenders would face up to $100 fines and thirty days in jail. Subsequent offenses would slap panhandlers with fines up to $200 and sixty days behind bars. Homeless advocates are shaking their heads, saying the downtrodden should not be punished for asking for money. Brian has a viewpoint too. He’s the man CBS4’s Michael Williams ran into on Flagler street as he tried to sell palm fronds that he had artfully turned into flower designs. He says he doesn’t want to ask for money without giving something in return. He also raised a practical problem with the proposed ordinance. Brian said, “If they fine you, how do they get the money when you don’t even have it to eat.” The executive director of the Miami Coalition for the Homeless, Benjamin Burton offered another perspective. ”I think this really just means people do not want to see poor people,” Burton told us. “We are third in poverty among large cities in the nation, and we need solutions like affordable housing and good wages to get people out of poverty.” The city counters that the “no-panhandle zone” would cover only a small fraction of Miami streets, and they say panhandlers are free to ask for a helping hand elsewhere in the city. The proposed ordinance is likely to win final approval next month, but opponents hope to soften its provisions. At minimum, they say panhandlers should not be fined or jailed on a first offense, and they add that moving the poverty stricken will not make a deeply entrenched community problem disappear. (© 2008 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.) Source: CBS4 (http://cbs4.com/local/Downtown.Miami.Kicking.2.697538.html) |