I understand than panhandlers can be annoying. I lived and worked in downtown Chicago for three years; no one has to tell me about panhandlers. But this kind of bothers me:
Those who do street shows or musical performances for voluntary donations will not be affected, nor will groups or individuals selling such things as Girl Scout cookies.Not that I have anything against fund raising, but in effect, it’s the same thing as panhandling. It’s no more or less annoying to be asked to buy cookies than it is to be asked for money for an individual.
The SJ-R story doesn’t define what the city considers “panhandling” and that may make the difference here. If the ban only covers so-called aggressive panhandling (blocking your way, touching, abusive language, etc.), I’m more inclined to support the idea. However, those things should be illegal anyway and apply citywide. As for non-aggressive panhandlers, you can always ignore them or say no; it’s not that big a deal.
And those who are “afraid” of panhandlers (or the homeless), I say ‘tough shit’. If you feared blacks or Asians or bankers you’d just have to live with it (or get over your prejudices). If an individual isn’t committing a real crime, there is no reason to ban them or their activity.
7 comments:
Dave,
I agree with you that panhandling should be illegal everywhere and not just in a selected area. Also, I think they will have a tough time enforcing this as the panhandler can simply "sing a song" and then ask for money. In Chicago, they have taken panhandling to a new level with homeless people selling "streetwise" newspapers. Mostly this occurs in front of grocery stores. "Catch you on your way out sir!"
I do disagree with you about your comments regarding those who are "afraid" of various groups (panhandlers, blacks, asians, etc..). When I go to the library with my family, I always "shield" my wife and 2 kids from the bums. Why do I do this? I think it is because of millions of years of evolution that has instilled a sense of danger or heightened awareness into me whenever I pass these groups. Even Jesse Jackson has said that he was fearful while walking in a bad part of Chicago and heard people walking behind him. He says that he was relieved when it turned out to be a white businessman. So, maybe there is a reason to be suspicious of "scarey" looking group.
I will ask you this: Would you be more comfortable walking into a bar like "The Corner Pub" or a bar on the east side?
I would feel uncomfortable walking into The Corner Pub, therefore it should be banned.
The panhandler thing isn't really a race thing - at least I don't think so.
It's probably their unclean appearance and that they're asking people for money when they don't even know them.
This opens the door to possible robbery, and violence.
We just had a murder down there on the steps of the North entrance of the library while you were vacationing in California last week.
It's understandible that those less able to defend themselves physically would be worried about the potential for assault.
One only need read the police beat to see that many assaults and robberies start as an act of faux pan handling. They close in past the safe space, and if you don't give up the money - things can get bad very fast.
JP
Your blog post seems insensitive in light of the stomping murder which took place last week at the entrance to our city's municiple library. Your liberal ideas are out of touch with the sad situation of chaos and violence which has destroyed our once beloved library.
Annon,
Give me a break. Murders happen everywhere by people from all walks of life including doctors, lawyers and other “respectable” people. Homeless people do bad things too, probably at a rate no worse than many segments of society. Show me that homeless people are more likely to be murders and maybe I’ll get all scared and crap my pants every time I walk within a block of the library like Rick Monday apparently does. I don’t buy into the conservatives primal need to feed off of and promote fear of anyone who is different.
I find it a little funny that a lot of people who are uncomfortable with a homeless person asking them for money have no problem with the concept of concealed carry. How does that not terrify them? The random encounter with someone you piss off who's packing heat scares me much more than someone with their hand out in front of Lincoln's home.
Furthermore, "liberal ideas" allow for practicing caution or concern where your instincts tell you to (i.e. the Reverand Jackson's experience or at an east-side bar ,or at the Lincoln Library)WITHOUT calling for the eradication of said area. It's a ridiculous challenge to suggest that liberals must be willing to enter any area of concern or else risk being labeled hypocritical. Everyone is entitled to exercise their consciences when deciding where they will or will not go. But trying to eliminate those areas for others based on your personal fears and insecurities is a ridiculous act of presumptiousness.
And finally, have any of the previous commenters been to the mall since the shooting there a couple of years ago? Or any of the banks or retail establishments that have been held up in the last year? Criminal acts can and do happen anywhere. Letting your guard down and labeling some as flukes, while others are "expected" leaves you very vulnerable.
If gang members were knowingly lurking around armed at the Mall I wouldn't go there, that's why there's security, and police there. Cause trouble, and you get kicked out.
If bank robbers were hanging out in front of your local bank you wouldn't go there either. That's why you don't see panhandlers sitting outside your local bank - ever.
We're talking the library for goodness sakes. A place where you relax, and get into a mood that's both public, and private. A place you must be relaxed enough at to attain any benefit from what you are surrounded by - books, meant to be read.
Instead you must try and find a place that doesn't smell like urine, and dirty clothes.
The library is not a flop house for those unwilling to work.
What people don't like to see are people who have drug (illegal) addictions, and people who are so destroyed as individuals that they can't stop themselves from having yet another drink hanging out with their hands out pretending to be what they're not - victims.
These folk hang out in front of, and inside an institution which tax payers pay for to be a place of inspiration, and of learning.
I know I won't be paying anymore out of community fees for library use - because that's a waste of money.
I'd change library rules so that you'd need a smart card to enter.
You'd have to pay a fee to get a card, or be a student with a student ID card to get your smart card. I'd set the fee into the hundreds of dollars, but I'd find a way to make it affordible for taxpayers, and the elderly.
I'd refund the fee in some way that would be complex enough so that people who use the library as a flop house wouldn't find it worthwhile trying to defeat the system.
That would put an end to the crap that's been allowed to ruin our community library.
JP
Post a Comment