Next step in effort to curb panhandling

The Cranston Herald ·

An ongoing national trend to criminalize panhandling on city streets in an effort to promote motorists’ safety has become a hot button issue in Rhode Island, but under Mayor Allan Fung’s administration the ordinance on the books in Cranston was suspended indefinitely until the new city council resumes next year and can negotiate an alternative to curtail the panhandling problem without infringing on First Amendment rights.

The Ordinance Committee voted down an updated panhandling policy on Thursday, Nov. 17, in a 4-2 defeat to the mayor’s plan, which would have prohibited vagrants from waylaying drivers from median strips along roadways. 

“The mayor intends on submitting the same legislation come January,” explained Mark Schieldrop, executive assistant at the mayor’s office. “We don’t feel that waiting any longer makes much sense because it’s a safety concern.” 

The administration expects political winds to subside allowing for the measure to pass next year after the inauguration of a Republican majority City Council, Schieldrop explained. 

“The new ordinance was drafted with the constitutionality in mind,” says Schieldrop. “We believe it is sound.”

Mayor Fung’s proposed ordinance would restrict the passage of money, goods, contraband or other items to and from a motor vehicle on a roadway, but would allow for freedom of speech from sidewalks. 

“It doesn’t single out one particular group,” said Schieldrop. 

Once adopted, the ordinance would also prohibit non-profits, school teams and the like from obtaining financial assistance from motorists. 

The current traffic regulation – now found to be unconstitutional – disallowed people from distributing literature and requesting donations from motorists in a traffic lane.

If the new ordinance is passed, it would prevent homeless from entering the traffic lanes and standing on the median to solicit donations, but panhandlers could still stand on the sidewalk with signs and exercise their First Amendment rights. Motorists could then pull into a parking lot or off the main road to donate.

“A transaction should not be occurring in the middle of traffic,” said Schieldrop.

 Schieldrop says that the ordinance will help prevent people from getting struck by a vehicle or rear-ended.

 In a statement following the disappointing outcome of the road safety ordinance vote, Mayor Fung said, “I am confident the new City Council that takes office in January will use facts and data to base their decision when the ordinance is reintroduced next year.”

 However, following the ruling, an alternate path to solving the problem now has proponents of a revised panhandling ordinance looking at introducing legislation on the state level in the Rhode Island House of Representatives to ratify the law in accordance with Article 1, section 21 of the Rhode Island Constitution. 

Cranston City Council President John Lanni says a “statewide solution” will be introduced by Rep. Charlene Lima, D-Cranston, in the New Year.

“The General Assembly should take this on,” said Lanni. “They have more attorneys that can look at the constitutionality.”

Yet, even though the American Civil Liberties Union will challenge the constitutionality, Schieldrop says, “We feel confident that the ordinance will pass constitutional muster.”

 The ACLU calls the criminalization of poverty by other cities unconstitutional, and on April 14 of 2016, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. for the District of Rhode Island ruled in favor of Plaintiff Michael Monteiro and declared Cranston Ordinance 10.40.070, otherwise known as Solicitation on roadways prohibited, to be in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Upon consent judgment, law enforcement officers were notified forthwith to refrain from enforcing the roadside solicitation ordinance.

In an email sent to the Cranston City Council on October 11, ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown wrote, “This broadly worded ordinance is a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine the right of poor people to engage in panhandling.”

Brown later writes, “Rather than addressing the problems that have forced people to engage in panhandling in the first place, this proposal seeks to punish them for their poverty.”

Karen Jeffreys, associate director at Coalition for the Homeless, said the curtailing on panhandling would only work if the necessary services and resources accompany the revised ordinance.

“There are three buckets needed,” says Jeffreys.

These solutions include building more affordable housing, vouchers or rental subsidies and service dollars to help the mental health or drug-addicted homeless.

“Our perspective is that not everyone who panhandlers is homeless,” said Jeffreys. “Case managers say they are housed but don’t have enough money to cover their needs so they turn to panhandling.”

Jeffries thinks passing the new panhandling ordinance will mask the problem instead of solving it.

“It just moves people someplace else. It doesn’t tackle the problem,” she said.

Homeless advocates like Jeffries are counting on $50 million in general obligation bonds – recently approved on the Nov. 8 ballot – to be allocated for affordable housing development, urban revitalization and blight remediation.