‘A difficult task to complete’

I’m glad to see that the city finally got past the misguided notion that squeegeeing in the street is a constitutional right. As some point out, panhandling may be constitutionally protected; but not in the middle of the street. Soliciting in the roadway is against the law. It may be a minor offense, but it is still unlawful, whether you agree with the law or not.

Even if it squeegeeing in the streets was not illegal, why would anyone want to encourage or allow our youth to run around in traffic? Does the squeegee kids’ need for money outweigh their safety and justify ignoring the law designed to protect them?

Panhandle on the sidewalk, in the parking lot or in the park, but not in the middle of the street where someone could get hurt in the process (the reason there is a law against it in the first place).

It appears that some are resigned to the “lesser of two evils” approach: allowing the commission of a minor crime (squeegeeing in the streets) so that it will not be replaced by a major one (selling drugs in the street). It is unfortunate that such a tactic has to be recognized as a viable option because of the perceived propensity for criminal activity.

It is encouraging that Baltimore will resume enforcement albeit on a selective basis. The past lack of enforcement has given the offenders an air of legitimacy and contempt for obeying the law, something that Baltimore sorely does not need. But declaring that an already illegal activity is now “disallowed” in some zones is unnecessary. Just start uniformly enforcing the law that already exists and prohibits the activity on every street. It is one thing to identify and target enforcement areas where offenders are the most problematic and concentrate policing efforts there. It is another to establish zones where a crime is “disallowed,” implying that in other locations it will be allowed. Why, especially in this age of equity, would this law, or any law, be directed to be enforced only in certain neighborhoods? That implies unequal application of the law. Does safety only matter at certain intersections?

Certainly the social and financial ills that force these kids into the streets illegally have to be addressed. One has to sympathize (to a point) with those who, because of their circumstances, must resort to conducting an illegal activity just to survive. But one also has to wonder why the situation even exists, given the many social programs in place to provide food, clothing, housing, etc., for the needy. Perhaps a review of those programs is in order if they are inadequate to provide the basic necessities and literally force these kids into the streets.

As a society, we need to provide a path for the disadvantaged among us to achieve legitimate self-sufficiency and success. The squeegee action plan shows a good effort. Part of the plan proposes paying squeegee workers $250 a month not to squeegee in the streets and requires them to “participate in service offerings.” There is something to be said for the carrot over the stick approach. But, while well-intentioned, one might argue that the program indirectly rewards illegal behavior since the program is only being offered to those who are squeegeeing in the street. Is it fair for the city to offer this payment and services only to those in need who are breaking the law? Is this same compensation and opportunity provided to those that are just as needy but obey the law? Since the program does not seem to be provided to those who panhandle legally, it is essentially paying someone not to break the law.

Here is a suggestion. How about creating and designating “squeegee pull-off zones” in the problem intersections, that would be out of the flow of traffic and where drivers could choose to have their windshields cleaned safely and legally? Should there prove to be minimal participation, then at least it was determined that most drivers do not willfully want the service.

The Squeegee Collaborative has a difficult task to complete, and I am sure they are trying their best to provide a good solution to the issue.

— Scott Richardson, Westminster