IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: Panhandling deal should be OK’d

IBJ Staff
November 23, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

The City-County Council would be well advised to adopt panhandling-ordinance changes passed Nov. 19 by the Rules and Public Policy Committee. The revisions could help both convention and local business. And if police resist enforcing it heavy-handedly, the city would benefit without trampling on constitutional rights.

The committee passed a measure that, among other changes, greatly restricts the areas where asking for money, and even passive solicitation, is allowed. But it wisely steers clear of controversial provisions adopted in some other cities—provisions that have drawn accusations of free-speech and civil-liberties violations.

The most significant changes to the Indianapolis law would:

• Broaden the panhandling barrier radius—to a 50-foot circle around sidewalk cafes, building entrances, ATMs, parking meters, bus stops and the like, from the previous 20 feet.

• Make passive solicitation and street performers subject to the same restrictions as panhandling, which is defined as requesting a donation in person in a public place.

The tighter restrictions would, in essence, ban panhandling from great sections of downtown. A few blocks in the Mile Square are parking-meter-free, and panhandlers would likely jockey for prime spots on Monument Circle. But most downtown sidewalks are within 50 feet of a space where financial transactions take place, thereby making them banned zones for panhandling.

The updates are modeled after the law San Antonio adopted two years ago in reaction to complaints about excessive panhandling on its scenic but dense and narrow River Walk—its signature tourism destination and one of the most-visited attractions in Texas.

Downtown density exacerbates Indianapolis’ panhandling problem. In fact, VisitIndy, Indianapolis’ tourism arm, says the city has lost 10 meetings worth a total of $6 million in visitor spending the last two years because of complaints that panhandling is more acute in Indianapolis than in other convention cities.

Raleigh, N.C., has been particularly aggressive in addressing panhandling, in 2011 going so far as to require panhandlers to register for a free permit. That allows the city to do criminal background checks on applicants, and to distribute information about services for poor and homeless residents.

But that law has invited criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and others, who charge that requiring a permit restricts free speech. Some Indianapolis city councilors considered including a similar provision in the local update, but the revisions the Rules and Public Policy Committee passed wisely avoided any such language.

The proposed changes strike a fair balance between protecting the rights of citizens to walk and conduct business in public safely and securely with the rights of citizens to seek donations in public places. The full council should make the revisions law when the measure comes up for final vote Dec. 9.•

To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Don't limit it to downtown
    It’s rampant throughout the city; not just downtown. I’ve had panhandlers come up to my car and knock on the window at 29th/30th and Meridian, frankly startling me and scaring my children. Drive up Keystone and they are on the corners, especially by Glendale. This is getting out of hand.
  • Not quite right
    Pan handlers can be a pain in the ass and cause discomfort to some, but street performers enhance the cultural life of a city. Banning street performers will enhance our reputation as plain vanilla India-no-place.
  • A Good Step Forward
    Every licensed business is regulated while paying taxes so why shouldn't the "under the table" people be also? As for permits many cities require that for door-to-door soliciting; how about Indianapolis?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT