Area cities must rethink panhandling bans
Supreme Court rules that panhandling is a form of free speech.
Standing on the corner and holding a sign asking for money is a protected constitutional right, according to interpretations by the U.S. Supreme Court that are forcing cities such as Beavercreek and Dayton to reconsider ordi- nances aimed at keeping beggars off the corners.
Beavercreek council members will vote a third and final time later this month to repeal the city’s panhandling ordinance, which spells out dozens of ways people are not allowed to stand in a public space and ask people for handouts. Violating the ordinance is a fourth-degree misdemeanor, and if it is violated three times in a year, it becomes a third-degree misdemeanor offense.
The city is repealing the law fol- lowing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, which determined that panhandling is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment, said Beavercreek City Manager Pete Landrum.
“The city took this action based on the court’s decision and to avoid a constitutional challenge,” Landrum said.
Dayton city leaders have already moved to strike down a similar
local ordinance. Earlier this year, Dayton council members passed a new pedestrian safety law that prohib- its people from approach- ing vehicles traveling on the city’s busiest thoroughfares. Homeless advocates say the new law indirectly targeting panhandlers.
Dayton leaders said the move was necessary to prevent an increasing pattern of pedestrian strikes.
Landrum said the city does not have plans to pass any new law related to panhan- dling.
Beavercreek has a “rela- tively low” number of reports and complaints of panhandling, and the repeal of the law “will not have a signifi- cant impact on our response to panhandlers,” said police Capt. Chad Lindsey.
“On average, we typically receive one to two reports of panhandling per week. In general, our practice has been to issue warnings if we were able to locate the pan- handler,” Lindsey said. “We will continue to assess the circumstances of each situation and enforce the applicable laws as needed.”
People who beg for hand- outs in Beavercreek often do so near the exit ramps of Interstate 675, particu- larly at North Fairfield Road.
Mayor Bob Stone said he doesn’t often see any panhandling activity in the main part of the city.
“Initially, the regulations that we passed addressing panhandling was due to citi- zen complaints,” Stone said. “It doesn’t make sense to have a law on the books that you can’t enforce.”
According to the discus- sion from Beavercreek council’s Sept. 24 meeting, city Law Director Steve McHugh advised panhandling is a protected right, similar to putting an election sign in one’s front yard.
Council member Julie Vann wanted to know what can be done legally to curb panhandling, as the law being struck down was recommended only a few years ago.
McHugh said things have changed, and if the city chose to enforce the law, it could be hit with a lawsuit.
Council member Charles Curran asked what tools are available, to which McHugh responded that people cannot block traffic or assault others, and that panhandling will continue to be an issue for cities.