|
Faced with legal challenges, Colorado Springs suspends most of its panhandling laws
These include city laws that had fallen under the definition of “aggressive solicitation.” Among these were restrictions against panhandlers continuing to ask for money after being turned down; following people who've said no even as they walk away; or seeking handouts at ATMs, sidewalk cafes, bus stops, street medians, cars as they're being parked or entrances to businesses. “I really worry about how this is going to affect our residents,” said Welling Clark, president of the Organization of Westside Neighbors (OWN) and leader of the ad hoc Avenue Task Force (ATF), both of which seek increased vitality for neighborhoods and businesses. “We have the second highest number of elderly residents in the city. What about these people's safety? If you're a law-abiding citizen, you're being punished.” Based on various information sources, the impasse stemmed from two separate, recent actions: - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June on a case that on its face had nothing to do with panhandling but whose implications are being felt nationwide. - A September letter from the Denver American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), charging that the city has illegally prosecuted numerous people for what's known as “passive solicitation” and demanding changes. In response to the above, City Attorney Wynetta Massey has suspended an entire section of the City Code that restricted all but passive panhandling (titled Solicitation on or Near Street or Highway: 10.18.112) as well as the better part of Solicitation Prohibited: 9.2.111, including part of the “aggresive” panhandling definition and restrictions on the type of begging that's active without being aggressive. According to Lieutenant Jeff Jensen of the Police Department's Gold Hill Substation, police have been meeting regularly with city lawyers to resolve the issue of the suspended laws. In a September letter (in response to Silverstein's earlier that month), Massey states that her office will be “drafting amendments to the city's solicitation ordinances for consideration by City Council.” In the meantime, the police lieutenant said that a goal for him is a more informed public. Even before the suspensions, a major misunderstanding has been what's actually restricted under the city's solicitation laws. For example, three years ago, City Council approved a restriction under 9.2.111 stating that no one could “solicit within 20 feet of an entrance to a building.” But this only banned active panhandlers - people moving around or asking for money. Based on court interpretations of free-speech rights, people can be almost anywhere in public if they are just “passively standing or sitting with a sign” (a quote from 9.2.111 that exempts such activity from the city's definition of “soliciting”). He did offer consolation to citizens who might have safety concerns. He said police in some cases can call on other city ordinances. For example, stipulations under Harassment: 9.2.107 could apply if anyone is followed by other people (such as panhandlers) or insulted “in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.” Westside Pioneer article |