Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, February 8, 1993 TAG: 9302080279
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
CLEAN UP CITY'S PANHANDLING LAW
A PERSON ought to be able to walk down the street without being scolded, cursed or otherwise intimidated by people asking for money. So it's not particularly bothersome that Roanoke police have been arresting panhandlers who can only be described, er . . . charitably, as obnoxious.We are bothered a bit, though, about the law under which they're being arrested.
The ordinance, written in 1956, essentially bans charitable solicitations for money unless a license first is obtained from the city. Technically, any mumbled requests for spare change that you hear down on the City Market are illegal.
The police have been using discretion in enforcing the ordinance, however, and by all accounts they've been using good judgment. The guy who spews curses at anyone unwilling to contribute to his private charity is liable to get busted. The fellows plying their trade quietly, not bothering anyone with more than a tug on the well-developed conscience, seem to be left alone.
That sounds like the right balance. Panhandling may be discomforting, no matter how discreetly done, but the Pat Buchanan view of the problem is appalling. During his run for the GOP presidential nomination, you remember, Buchanan said to just lock up the bums, or, at the very least, restrict the homeless to certain public areas.
Perhaps some kind of holding pen for the poor? They are, after all, such a nuisance.
Roanoke is not that mean. Yet Roanokers take pride in the livability of their community. They want to be able to take the kids downtown for lunch and a visit to Center in the Square without fear they'll be verbally assaulted by panhandlers. For the most part, they can. That is a tribute to police moderation and common sense in enforcing the law.
So what's the problem? It's not with law enforcement, it's with the law itself.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutional question of whether begging is speech protected by the First Amendment. But there's a good chance it is. It ought to be. Roanoke's ordinance is written so broadly that any unlicensed request for charity is against the law - whether it comes from an abusive, cursing drunk; a pathetic guy who is hurting for his next drink; or, for that matter, a starving child or a working stiff who doesn't have the change for a bus ride home.
The fact that the law now seems to be reasonably enforced doesn't mean it always will be. It's hard to imagine that a child asking for a quarter to call home ever will be in serious peril of arrest. It's not so hard to imagine growing public resentment of the real panhandlers, and consequently more pressure on the police to do something about them.
Police must have some leeway to do their jobs effectively. But too much wiggle room in an ordinance makes an arrest vulnerable to constitutional challenge for violation of the equal-protection clause. Laws cannot be selectively enforced according to whom the authorities see as the good guys and the bad guys.
Why is it OK for a clean, hard-working fellow to ask for change for the bus, when a scruffy idler looking for a quarter can be arrested? Because society doesn't approve of his drinking? Indeed, we may not approve, and it is our right to ignore him when he asks for our money. But he has a right to ask.
What's needed isn't a law against panhandling, but one against "panhassling," a term coined in San Diego, where the problem of aggressive begging is far worse than it is here.
The city attorney's staff is researching Roanoke's ordinance and will advise City Council on what, if anything, needs to be done with it. That's heartening.
As long as the law is being enforced sparingly, this is not a pressing problem. But it could become one. The city would be wise to undertake a little preventive maintenance now - before swirls of emotion, clouding good judgment, arise in reaction to what the law is really trying to prevent: not speech, but disorderly conduct.