Ordinance Banning “Aggressive Panhandling” Passes Council; Becomes Law

Following an October 17 meeting in which the City Council deleted two of the most “punitive” subsections relating to camping and other activities within commercial corridors, the final reading of the City’s “aggressive panhandling” ordinance led to its unanimous approval Monday evening.

According to the staff report and recommendation presented to the Council, the ordinance would provide for “enforcement under a new clear standard in which threatening, coercive, or menacing behavior, that is otherwise not addressed in State law, would be prohibited.

“The intent of the proposed ordinance,” the report continued, “is to ensure that the City’s streets and sidewalks are unobstructed so that businesses can operate unimpeded and that patrons, employees, and visitors can move about the City without obstruction.”

Such localized ordinances do not conflict with State law, the report stated. “The proposed ordinance here has been narrowly crafted and will prohibit the obstruction of public ways and places by persons or property and will also prohibit aggressive panhandling in public byways,” the report added

State law currently does not address the obstruction of sidewalks by individuals or their property. Currently, state laws prohibit aggressive begging only if the individual “accosts other persons.”

Given the ordinance’s controversial nature, a number of residents and community leaders, mostly from faith-based groups, spoke out against the ordinance.

“The strategy does not solve the issue,” said Alberto Juarez of Pasadena Presbyterian Church. “This issue is far broader, and deeper, and needs a more humane response. I know the city can do it.” Juarez also suggested the possibility of some type of urban campground in the City.

“We’re opposed to anything that will make things harder for the homeless,” said Rabbi Jonathan Klein, of Clergy and Laity for Economic Justice. “We’re deeply concerned that the city is not doing enough.” he added.

“Where do you expect them to go?,” he continued. “As a Rabbi and as a Jewish person, we believe that any existence has value and certain entitlement,’ he said. “This person is a citizen. The ordinance works against that.”

Continuing in the same vein, resident Bill Watts told the council, “Please refrain from enforcing laws against panhandling. There is no data that suggests that these laws work. The law is a violation of the fourth amendment, he said , referring to the amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…”

Watts also pointed out that the law violates the 14th amendment, which protects citizens against any law “which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Watts contended that the seizure of property by police violates due process, to which Councilmember Steve Madison agreed, citing his concern with police seizing property for 30 days, while other cities will hold homeless property for 90 days, allowing more time for it to be retrieved.

City Attorney Michelle Bagneris, explained, however, that the law states a “minimum of 30 days,” and nothing prohibits the city from holding property for safekeeping for longer.

Councilmember Margaret McAustin added some perspective to the discussion, saying, “This is very difficult for us. We are a very progressive city.” She also noted the city’s Ten year Plan to End Homelessness, and added, “You can’t look at this ordinance in a vacuum.”

“We have a responsibility to be humane,” added Councilmember Victor Gordo.

“Make no mistake,” said Councilmember John Kennedy, following the emotional public comment session. “This is not about criminalizing homelessness. This is only about aggressive panhandling.”

Councilmember Tyron Hampton concurred, saying, “I have voted against this ordinance three times, but I am glad the ordinance is better now.” But Hampton also expressed his reservations about the nature of the ordinance, saying that ‘giving people ticket after ticket those who don’t have addresses, doesn’t seem to be the answer. It seems to me we already have laws and procedures in place for this.” Hampton eventually voted for the ordinance.

Other California cities have also enacted similar local ordinances to curb the problem. Los Angeles for example, prohibits panhandling in “an aggressive manner” while Santa Monica prohibits panhandling in a manner that is “harassing or menacing.”