Best approach to panhandlers? Ignore them – Richmond Register

Editors note: The Registers parent company, Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., has papers all over the United States. Each Wednesday, this space will be dedicated to what one of those papers thinks about the issues facing their communities.

In striking down Lexingtons anti-panhandling law, the Kentucky Supreme Court has further clarified what local governments can do to discourage individuals from begging: very little.

Despite the societal stigma associated with panhandling, this form of expression is widely considered to be constitutionally protected speech, Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. said in the decision.

Its a decision that likely kills similar ordinances across the state, including the one in Louisville Metro that imposes a $250 fine, 90 days in jail, or both for those who aggressively beg for money in public.

The landmark ruling also said it is unconstitutional for city officials to treat individuals who carry signs begging for money differently from others, such as those with religious messages such as Jesus Loves You.

The only thing distinguishing these two people is the content of their messages, Minton wrote.

The ruling does provide guidance to local governments about what they can and cannot do to discourage panhandling. Nearly every city in Kentucky, including Ashland, has debated ways to limit individuals from begging.

The case before the state Supreme Court was brought by attorneys for Dennis Champion, 58, who has been cited or arrested more than 550 times for begging, illegal solicitations and disorderly conduct since 2004 in Lexington and Louisville, according to court records.

Defending the Lexington ordinance, which carried a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail, a $100 fine, or both, the Fayette County attorneys office said the city had a compelling interest in pedestrians not being struck by motorists and in the efficient flow of traffic. But the 14-page ruling said Lexington officials failed to show panhandlers were responsible for traffic delays or accidents.

A decade ago, Louisvilles Metro Council enacted an anti-begging law saying there was an increase in aggressive solicitation in downtown and throughout the city that had become extremely disturbing and disruptive to residents and businesses. The ordinance says certain types of panhandling has contributed not only to the loss of access and enjoyment of public places, but also to an enhanced fear, intimidation and disorder.

It was primarily a response to people who (were) getting up in folks faces, not leaving them alone and demanding money, Democratic caucus spokesman Tony Hyatt said. Louisville has defined aggressive solicitation as repetitively approaching or following pedestrians despite refusals, the use of abusive or profane language to cause fear and intimidation, unwanted physical contact, or the intentional blocking of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It specifically forbids such behavior within 20 feet of an automated teller machine, an outdoor dining area or a bus stop.

The high courts ruling does provide a legal road map to how cities could regulate beggars and that appears to favor Louisvilles ordinance. Minton wrote that Lexington could prohibit all individuals from approaching stopped motorists, which he said targets the behavior a city seeks to prohibit rather than why a person steps into traffic.

The new Supreme Court ruling makes it clear panhandlers have the right to beg, but that does not mean anyone must give them anything. In fact, we think the best way for people to respond panhandlers is to not give them anything to make begging worth their time.

The Daily Independent, Ashland

Visit link:

Best approach to panhandlers? Ignore them - Richmond Register