A sound decision on panhandling rule

AN Oklahoma City ordinance that outlawed panhandling from traffic medians always passed the common-sense test. But common sense doesn’t always carry the day in legal settings, so it’s a welcome development that a federal judge has ruled the ordinance is constitutional.

The ordinance was approved by the city council in December 2015 after much debate. The ordinance prohibited standing on traffic medians near busy intersections and was later tweaked to apply only to roughly 400 medians located within streets with a 40-miles-per-hour speed limit or greater, strengthening the public safety rationale for the restriction.

There was never serious doubt that the ordinance increases the safety of panhandlers and drivers. Data from multiple national entities shows a large share of traffic accidents occur near intersections, and a majority of fatal pedestrian accidents involve cars traveling more than 40 mph.

Yet critics, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the law, arguing it violated constitutional free-speech and equal-protection guarantees. To the average citizen, that no doubt sounds dubious, especially since panhandlers are still allowed to engage in their speech from street corners even under the ordinance. But anti-panhandling ordinances in cities in Illinois, Massachusetts, Colorado and Florida have been struck down as unconstitutional.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton concluded the “primary purpose” of the medians covered by the ordinance is “traffic control” and that those medians are often “considerably less accessible than the streets, sidewalks and parks” typically used for free-speech activities. He wrote that “expert testimony” is not required to conclude “that traffic is more dangerous at high speeds than low speeds” and that “the risk to pedestrians is greater if traffic is speeding past them on two sides rather than one.”

Heaton noted a prior Fourth Circuit ruling declared “common sense and logic” sufficient reason to remove pedestrians from certain medians. And he pointed out that “plaintiffs are not proscribed from sitting, standing or staying at the same intersections they did before. They just cannot stand in the medians, in the middle of the road, at some locations.”

Put simply, Oklahoma City’s ordinance applies equally to everyone, so it isn’t discriminatory. It serves a valid public purpose by increasing safety. And it provides citizens with a reasonable free-speech alternative to standing in the median.

As we’ve long argued, basic compassion is reason enough to support this ordinance. To shrug off the preventable injury or death of panhandlers is inhumane. And one must keep in mind the trauma experienced by drivers who strike a panhandler through no fault of their own. Why should Oklahoma City officials not take simple steps to prevent such outcomes?

The ACLU vows to appeal Heaton’s decision, so this fight isn’t over, but the decision is sound and city residents should hope it is upheld. No one’s free speech has been harmed by the ordinance, public safety has been improved and lives may have been saved. The good created by the ordinance clearly outweighs any negatives.