Panhandling and The First Amendment

I'll start this with an anecdote that may not paint me in a positive light; I don't like being asked for money by strangers. I don't care if they are well dressed college age kids who "just need money for the bus" or middle aged men with 10 days growth of facial hair who "just need money for the bus." It's inconvenient and frustrating and overall a staggeringly inept form of helping those in need.

My state has had for years a statute banning panhandling in public areas. What this meant, in practice, is that hobos and drifters never went away, but the police could force them out of public areas and could technically arrest them. Our city actually has a pretty good network of charitable organizations such that these individuals never suffer for lack of a meal, and evn the people arrested are fed. The money they beg for has a statistically huge chance of going toward alcohol, with cigarettes and illegal drugs being right up there.

In August, the Federal District Court ruled that begging was a protected form of speech, akin to charitable solicitation. The consequence is that the number of drifters and hobos asking for money has skyrocketed, and unless they assault or defraud a person, the police cannot stop them.

I understand that free speech is a bedrock upon which this country is founded, and should not be curtailed because certain speech annoys the hell out of me and is detrimental to the very people who partake in these activities, by feeding addictions and circumventing existing safety nets. I still support laws that make panhandling illegal; but it's a tricky line to walk. How do you feel about begging being a legal activity in public areas?

I think the move to eliminate state-funded mental services and institutions in the 80's was a big mistake. Most of what you describe is either self-medication, or something that could be handled by an addiction treatment program, if there were enough seats to go around. If you want real change, the question is not "Do they have to be allowed to do this where I can see them?" but "How do we get them the services they need to stop the behavior (and get them jobs and a place to live off the street as a result)?"

Begging should be legal, just like haranguing people on a street corner is. But you also have the right not to give.

Austin has a great deal of beggars. You could say we're fraught with them. The work I do takes me through various homeless/poverty service shelters and centers on a monthly basis, so it's hard to not really feel sympathetic to beggars in general. Seeing how they live their day-to-day and the inadequate facilities our city has (even for a bleeding heart liberal city, our services aren't fantastic, but probably better than others), all I can usually think is that if I were in a similar situation, I'd probably see annoying some folks for change as a minor concern at best.

That being said, begging is useless in general. Every time I give to a beggar, I personally feel like I am perpetuating a pointless activity. As Robear says, it certainly isn't affecting the root of the problem in the least. But that usually isn't enough for me to pass by people and comfort myself with when faced with it directly. I usually don't carry cash, but find that when I do, it vanishes into the pockets of perfect strangers very quickly.

And giving to beggars just perpetuates the activity. Given that even when panhandling was illegal it still happened with regularity, I have severe doubts that banning the activity will ever eliminate it.

The problem is multifaceted (which social problem isn't?); first, even if shelters were robust enough to handle the capacity of beggars, many of them need items that are banned from those shelters - like alcohol and illegal drugs - and thus would not go.

Second, there is the (dubious, unproven, anecdotal) notion that 8 hours of begging is more profitable than working a minimum wage job. If you can score 40-60 dollars in a day and not pay any taxes...what incentive is there to join the workforce? And unless we start punishing the sympathy of others by banning giving, I don't see a way out of that beyond living wage laws.

Portland is awash in beggars, and it is frankly unpleasant to walk around parts of the city because of that. I personally do not consider begging free speech, it is an economic exchange, and can/should be regulated. I completely agree with Robear that cutting these people off from the financial and medical assistance that we used to provide has caused this to be such an issue today. Mental health clinics, drug treatment programs, and quality back-to-work programs are what we need, not the legal authorization to scream demands at people for cash. I'll grant that my stance on this may be a bit warped by some rather caustic experiences that I was afraid would result in physical fights because I refused to pay up, but I think the principal stands.

Seth wrote:

The problem is multifaceted (which social problem isn't?); first, even if shelters were robust enough to handle the capacity of beggars, many of them need items that are banned from those shelters - like alcohol and illegal drugs - and thus would not go.

Second, there is the (dubious, unproven, anecdotal) notion that 8 hours of begging is more profitable than working a minimum wage job. If you can score 40-60 dollars in a day and not pay any taxes...what incentive is there to join the workforce? And unless we start punishing the sympathy of others by banning giving, I don't see a way out of that beyond living wage laws.

There are a few people I know of on the East Coast who put themselves through college panhandling. They were emphatically *not* having mental or substance abuse issues. Your fears here are actually contradictory - people who are homeless due to addiction or mental illness are not capable of the kind of discipline and forethought necessary to make serious money panhandling. Nor are they socially equipped for it.

When you talk about people who *refuse* shelters, that's a relatively small subset of the homeless, and a subset of those who are begging. It's kind of the worst case scenario. And when you tie that worry to the literal handful of people who try to do it professionally, you're tacking together two worries that are not compatible. I can see that that would make you think that things that are are relatively uncommon, are common, and also that people who have addictions/mental illnesses might also be considered as swindling layabouts.

I don't think those connections are plausible, or numerous.

Hey Seth, this was in US District court, not state Supreme.

I smell another Federal SCOTUS over-ruling of Michigan's and the 6th Circuit's general less than stellar understanding of the federal constitution coming up. Affirmative action and drunk driving roadblocks are two recent instances. There was a case in California about pan handling as well, and the ordinance was specific about protecting private residences and businesses. And many more.

I am not how you can qualify vagrancy as speech. Public speech can be constrained by requiring permits, easy flow of traffic, and not unduly affecting surrounding businesses and people.

Generally I'm not in favor of laws or practices that make it harder on the people who already have it the worst. There is a reason people suggest you give to shelters, not panhandlers, but I'd still prefer they have that option.

Thanks KG! OP updated.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Generally I'm not in favor of laws or practices that make it harder on the people who already have it the worst. There is a reason people suggest you give to shelters, not panhandlers, but I'd still prefer they have that option.

Portland is a-ok with panhandling. It is really, really detrimental to society and encourages really negative behavior. Today's example regards homeless people who've staked out a region they want to beg in threatening and attacking the local business owners who, surprisingly, have a problem with their customers being harassed.

That's a bit of a special case I think because those were gutterpunks rather than the more "conventional" homeless and therefore pose a different type of problem, but Portland also has severe problems with the latter as well.

EDIT: Don't take this as an endorsement of panhandling. I used to work in a small grocery in the downtown of a major city and can personally attest that the vast majority of panhandling proceeds goes towards 200ml bottles of vodka rather than bus fare or food or whatever else they are claiming they need it for.

God, I get so sick of people giving money out to panhandlers outside of my apartment or around the area. Generally they're tourists, either from the 'burbs or from other states, and I just want to throw water balloons at them or something. They aren't helping, they're hurting the area by encouraging the behavior, and god knows we already have enough vagabonds since we don't reach temperateness here that lead to either heat stroke or freezing to death.

On the plus side, at least our panhandlers tend to sit on the sidewalk doing nothing. Every time I've been to Indianapolis I've been accosted by vagrants jingling cups full of pennies at me or yelling things at people.

Robear wrote:

I think the move to eliminate state-funded mental services and institutions in the 80's was a big mistake. Most of what you describe is either self-medication, or something that could be handled by an addiction treatment program, if there were enough seats to go around. If you want real change, the question is not "Do they have to be allowed to do this where I can see them?" but "How do we get them the services they need to stop the behavior (and get them jobs and a place to live off the street as a result)?"

Begging should be legal, just like haranguing people on a street corner is. But you also have the right not to give.

Last I checked here in Minneapolis you can have a sign, but cannot verbally ask for money. Honestly though, I never give money to the people on the street, as most of them are lying about what they want the money for. The guy with the star tattoo across his face hits me up about once a week for change so he can take the bus back to his hometown (whichever town it is this week)

I have no problem giving money to the local homeless shelters, but I suspect that most of the local panhandlers will be spending their coins on either alcohol or add it to the local criminal networks.

My opinion on panhandling changed drastically the first time I saw a homeless guy - who I had just given a buck to not 10 minutes prior - walk out of a convenience store with a 40 oz Steel Reserve in his hand. I understand not all panhandlers are alcoholics, and furthermore that alcoholism is as much a disease as anything else, but if someone wants to drink themselves into oblivion then 1.) do it where no one has to put up with you, and 2.) don't expect the rest of us to fund it.

But should it be illegal? I can't think of a good reason for making it so, and can only see further crowding our already over-capacity jails with drunks and vagrants as potentially creating more problems that it's worth.

IMAGE(http://themavesite.com/TMS-Pictures/2011-04/NeedMoneyForBeer.jpg)

Some panhandlers make really good money - according to the Seattle Times some report making up to $40K tax free a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...

When I worked in downtown Seattle there was a "wounded" vet who sat in a wheelchair and had a new malady every few days. One day you'd see him with a fake hearing aid, the next with an eyepatch over his left eye, the next the eyepatch moved to his right eye, etc. He was of course hustling the tourists who wouldn't be around to notice his blatant fraud. Then you see the panhandlers asking for change so they can hop a bus in the next few minutes, only to hang around for hours asking every passerby for money.

I recognize some people are really in a bad spot, and I don't think it should be illegal except in certain areas (letting panhandlers get aggressive in subway stations for example is asking for trouble). But because of the many con artists and addicts/alcoholics, I don't think you're necessarily helping anyone by giving away money.

So, basically, JD, you'd say most panhandlers are grifters making a solid middle class living? If not, what percentage, do you think? I challenge you to show that it's "many" as opposed to "very few".

The reason I ask is that you are using those anecdotes to imply that involuntary homelessness and poverty is not really a problem in the US. Instead, you imply it's mostly fakers. Do you believe that to be true, and do you have evidence to back it up?

The studies I've seen cite mental illness as the cause of homelessness for 20% to 25% of the homeless population. The three top causes of homelessness for single people are, in order, substance abuse; lack of affordable housing; and mental illness. However, the situation you describe is the case for people who *don't* fit the usual profile; they are not crazy or addicted, they have somewhere to live. And yet you seem to think that they represent the norm.

How can you support policies and spending to help the homeless if you think they are mostly grifters and conmen? Alternatively, if you don't, why focus on the tiny percentage that are abusing the system? Any system has abusers, after all. That does not mean that they are a problem that outweighs the many more who are actually in need of help.

Ask yourself, if churches and charities are doing so well, if government aid is doing so well, why are these people still on the streets in such numbers? And why are most of them *not* conning people, but are actually in need of help? That's what we need to figure out, how to take care of this population (of *millions*) who are not sufficiently served by the private and public agencies.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Generally I'm not in favor of laws or practices that make it harder on the people who already have it the worst. There is a reason people suggest you give to shelters, not panhandlers, but I'd still prefer they have that option.

This is where I stand. We have plenty of panhandlers in St. Louis, and I don't give them money. But every time I read about how panhandlers are the problem, I cringe. I'm sure people will be thrilled with option B if we eliminate their ability to beg.

And trying to make a case that panhandlers are crafty con men is a pretty disgusting way to ease one's conscious. It's the kind of atitude that leads to this. It's an atitude that sends the wrong signals to kids.

Robear has the right of it. We have the capability of providing better.

Robear wrote:

So, basically, JD, you'd say most panhandlers are grifters making a solid middle class living? If not, what percentage, do you think? I challenge you to show that it's "many" as opposed to "very few".

The reason I ask is that you are using those anecdotes to imply that involuntary homelessness and poverty is not really a problem in the US. Instead, you imply it's mostly fakers. Do you believe that to be true, and do you have evidence to back it up?

The studies I've seen cite mental illness as the cause of homelessness for 20% to 25% of the homeless population. The three top causes of homelessness for single people are, in order, substance abuse; lack of affordable housing; and mental illness. However, the situation you describe is the case for people who *don't* fit the usual profile; they are not crazy or addicted, they have somewhere to live. And yet you seem to think that they represent the norm.

How can you support policies and spending to help the homeless if you think they are mostly grifters and conmen? Alternatively, if you don't, why focus on the tiny percentage that are abusing the system? Any system has abusers, after all. That does not mean that they are a problem that outweighs the many more who are actually in need of help.

Ask yourself, if churches and charities are doing so well, if government aid is doing so well, why are these people still on the streets in such numbers? And why are most of them *not* conning people, but are actually in need of help? That's what we need to figure out, how to take care of this population (of *millions*) who are not sufficiently served by the private and public agencies.

You should visit Oregon, the people who spend all day standing at freeway off ramps and shopping center intersections are not hurting for food, shelter, clothing, or mental stability. How many of them do I have to see coming out of the nearby 7-11 with booze or a Slurpee, or checking their texts on a smart phone, before I can be jaded about it?

I'm all in favor of programs that actually try to get people off of the street, or prevent them from ending up there in the first place. But the junkies(meth, anyone?) and people who choose panhandling are at or near a majority in the Portland area, in my experience.

Robear wrote:

So, basically, JD, you'd say most panhandlers are grifters making a solid middle class living? If not, what percentage, do you think? I challenge you to show that it's "many" as opposed to "very few".

The reason I ask is that you are using those anecdotes to imply that involuntary homelessness and poverty is not really a problem in the US. Instead, you imply it's mostly fakers. Do you believe that to be true, and do you have evidence to back it up?

Actually:

jdzappa wrote:

Some panhandlers make really good money - according to the Seattle Times some report making up to $40K tax free a year.

It's possible to believe that a lot of panhandlers--especially if we're talking about the ones in high pedestrian traffic/tourist areas--are making a lot of money, and not imply that involuntary homelessness isn't a problem. Instead, it could be saying something like: the impoverished are simply off our radar: we don't see them panhandling because we just don't see them, period. Probably through a combination of our blindness and their desire not to be noticed, probably both for personal and for safety reasons.

tl;dr: don't assume panhandlers are a representative sample of the homeless, so don't assume someone saying something about panhandlers thinks they represent the norm.

Kraint wrote:

But the junkies(meth, anyone?) and people who choose panhandling are at or near a majority in the Portland area, in my experience.

That's my point, though, Kraint. Substance abuse is the number one reason that single people are homeless. It's not that they are out there making a good living by cheating honest people, it's that they are addicts who can't hold a job, who can't hold a basic apartment, most likely. They are in a position that is as bad or worse than someone who is mentally ill.

My point is that instead of talking about services being increased (via private or public means), we have internalized the "homeless people and beggars are that way because they are immoral" position. But really, they are there - most of them - because the support system that was previously available was taken away. After all, it was part of the Nanny State...

Robear wrote:
Kraint wrote:

But the junkies(meth, anyone?) and people who choose panhandling are at or near a majority in the Portland area, in my experience.

That's my point, though, Kraint. Substance abuse is the number one reason that single people are homeless. It's not that they are out there making a good living by cheating honest people, it's that they are addicts who can't hold a job, who can't hold a basic apartment, most likely. They are in a position that is as bad or worse than someone who is mentally ill.

My point is that instead of talking about services being increased (via private or public means), we have internalized the "homeless people and beggars are that way because they are immoral" position. But really, they are there - most of them - because the support system that was previously available was taken away. After all, it was part of the Nanny State...

You apparently missed the point that I see, on a regular basis, people who are fully capable of working that feel panhandling is a better ROI. Maybe it is a regional issue, but there is a large group of capable people who are happy to stand at freeway off ramps rather than working for minimum wage around here.

Did you read the read the previous sentence of my post, about wanting services that actually help reduce homelessness expanded? Because I can want that, and think that begging leads to really crappy and destructive behavior. And when every dollar you give someone is more likely to help keep them on the street and away from those programs, I think it is fair to say that panhandling needs to be stopped. Yes, all panhandlers are not inherently awful people who are out there because they can't be arsed to work. But the act itself causes more harm to the people who are engaging in it(more drugs for many, more reason for others to avoid productive employment).

Robear wrote:

So, basically, JD, you'd say most panhandlers are grifters making a solid middle class living? If not, what percentage, do you think? I challenge you to show that it's "many" as opposed to "very few".

The reason I ask is that you are using those anecdotes to imply that involuntary homelessness and poverty is not really a problem in the US. Instead, you imply it's mostly fakers. Do you believe that to be true, and do you have evidence to back it up?

The studies I've seen cite mental illness as the cause of homelessness for 20% to 25% of the homeless population. The three top causes of homelessness for single people are, in order, substance abuse; lack of affordable housing; and mental illness. However, the situation you describe is the case for people who *don't* fit the usual profile; they are not crazy or addicted, they have somewhere to live. And yet you seem to think that they represent the norm.

How can you support policies and spending to help the homeless if you think they are mostly grifters and conmen? Alternatively, if you don't, why focus on the tiny percentage that are abusing the system? Any system has abusers, after all. That does not mean that they are a problem that outweighs the many more who are actually in need of help.

Ask yourself, if churches and charities are doing so well, if government aid is doing so well, why are these people still on the streets in such numbers? And why are most of them *not* conning people, but are actually in need of help? That's what we need to figure out, how to take care of this population (of *millions*) who are not sufficiently served by the private and public agencies.

Sorry if I wasn't clear but my comments were directed squarely at panhandlers, especially the ones who cause the most trouble for local businesses and the public. I wasn't talking about the poor in general, and for the record I volunteer at my local food bank. I fully recognize that there are a lot of people hurting out there, but the funny thing is I see a huge differene in attitude between the people who show up at the food bank versus the average panhandler.

At any rate, I found these two articles interesting. The first is how the businesses in Pioneer Square banded together to show the mayor just how disruptive panhandlers were becoming. The second interviews local Seattle charities that recommend you give money to programs that help the poor rather than to individuals. (That article also has some dissenting views but I tend to side with those discouraging panhandling).

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/sea...

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...

Are food banks more likely to serve people with homes, or the homeless? That question aside, I have no problem with the articles, they seem like useful approaches. I just don't want to see the homeless stuffed unfairly into the "morally corrupt" category, it's too much like blaming the victims for me.

Robear wrote:

Are food banks more likely to serve people with homes, or the homeless? That question aside, I have no problem with the articles, they seem like useful approaches. I just don't want to see the homeless stuffed unfairly into the "morally corrupt" category, it's too much like blaming the victims for me.

The number of homeless people that are veterans is disturbing, especially when they're villainized.

Who is painting the homeless as bad in this thread? Panhandling is awful for many reasons, but homeless != asshole panhandler in any of the posts I've read.

Just go back and re-read if you're curious where I'm coming from, Kraint. I think I explained it clearly.

Robear wrote:

Just go back and re-read if you're curious where I'm coming from, Kraint. I think I explained it clearly.

I have read it, and do not understand how you came to the conclusion you did. You are the first one I see to substitute 'panhandling is all-around negative, and is sometimes/often done by scammers' for 'the homeless are always evil and/or fake'. To draw an analogy: just because I hate the scam junk mail that sleazy charities send out doesn't mean that sickly puppies don't exist or shouldn't be adopted into loving homes.

I was reacting to the shading of the conversation. I saw people arguing that "many" of the panhandlers were doing it as an 8 hour day, to earn a living. You, Seth, JD, were all arguing that, well, yes, services suck, but the panhandlers are a problem because they are insistent, "many" of them scamming, and they were deliberately not taking advantage of services. There was no mention that most panhandlers are either addicted, forced out of a house, or mentally ill, which puts an entirely different face on the situation. It's not the case that most pushy panhandlers are acting entirely rationally or out of greed. And yet the discussion from one side seemed to me to reflect only that angle - stop the panhandling because it's annoying, possibly dangerous, and worst of all, it's probably cynically taking advantage of the gullible.

My response was to point out that statistics show that the large majority of the single homeless - those who we'd expect to be begging at some point - have problems that not only pre-dispose them to not use services often, but also make it more likely that they will act in ways that can be taken as aggressive or scary. In other words, I don't think that the small number of con artists are actually reflective of the causes of begging in the US, and we should not focus on them instead of on the lack of services for the much larger and sicker majority who could use help if they could simply get it.

My view is that if we keep pushing the homeless around and out of our sight, they will either die more frequently, or we'll become annoyed enough at the problem that we'll embark on programs to fix it. But I really wonder how making begging illegal will help people who are in need of shelter and long term mental and physical health care, as well as work. It seems like sweeping dust under a carpet instead of cleaning it up.

Besides, I'm old enough to remember how this whole situation came about. We had a federal mental health care system, and then a state one, and then the abuses that had accumulated proved to be hard and expensive to fix. So states just simply shut down the programs and tried to put money into things like home care and group homes in neighborhoods. Not only did that not work, as cities were not able to manage those situations well, but social conservatives attacked the programs as entitlements and dependency-creating money holes. Funding in some states, like California, was hit hard by tax reductions. And within a few years in the 80's, the homeless problem ballooned, driven by economic downturn, the attempted shift in services, and the ideological desire to strip government down to it's "Constitutional" basics.

The problem is not the begging. It's what has brought us people who *need* to beg in the first place. That's what we need to fix, and banning it from city centers won't make any positive changes in that direction. It'll simply push the problems out of people's minds for a while. If you really want to fix the situation, push for a more robust social safety net, and taxpayer funded mental health, addiction treatment and job training programs at the state and federal levels.

Thanks for your thoughts, Robear. It wasn't my intention to paint the homeless as bad here (I was more interested in a thread centered on charitable solicitation as protected speech, but no thread starter controls how a thread evolves).

I didn't think it was, I was just trying to challenge assumptions.