|
Panhandling Law Designed to Set Behavior Standards |
|
by Dr. Carl Mumpower
Op-Ed
Asheville Citizen-Times
December 1, 2002
In
the two weeks since Asheville City Council passed an ordinance
addressing panhandling, public urination, and other behaviors, various
voices of disappointment have stepped forward to challenge our decision.
Most
dramatically, the Citizen-Times editorially criticized a "flawed
process" and "flawed decision" while a local attorney and
representative of the ACLU pressed the point that we had "flunked" by
doing direct harm to Constitutional freedoms. Curiously, at least in
the media, the voices in support of our effort have been absent. In
that complex issues are rarely defined from one perspective, it might
help to briefly share a view from the other side of the table.
In
spite of how it may be presented, each member of Council struggled with
this ordinance. Months of staff time and energies were invested in
researching and crafting an ordinance that was measured, legally
defensible, and responsive to a persisting pattern of problems in
certain areas of our community.
Yes, in the end there was some
confusion and miscommunication about the impact on musicians and others
who solicit for charities and nonprofits. Members of Council thought
those problems would be addressed before the final hour, and we were
guilty of missing the cues that said that such might not be the case.
The
echo of the vote was still traveling in the Council Chambers when city
staff was asked to look for ways to fix these concerns.
Still,
even with these unfortunate negative impacts, the reasons for this
!
ordinanc
e remained clear and persistent–there are some people in our
city who do not behave in a manner that we can responsibly ignore.
This ordinance was not designed to outlaw homelessness.
It
was more purposefully intended to establish standards of behavior that
give consideration to the basics of civility, community and mutual
responsibility.
The voices of our residents, downtown business
owners, those who help the homeless, other cities who have faced this
issue before us, law enforcement officers, and many others were
utilized to shine a light on the best course of action.
It was
our conclusion that being free to beg, use public streets as a
restroom, and sleep on benches designed for other purposes does little
to enhance the quality of anyones life.
We play a cruel joke on
the homeless when we pretend it is so and ignore the deeper issues of
poverty, mental illness and addiction.
Tolerating dysfunctional
symptoms is not a conscionable substitute for the more demanding task
of addressing the real problems that produce the symptoms.
The
people who developed and voted on this ordinance had the courage to
step forward and challenge activities that have more to say about
personal and cultural breakdown than liberty and the Constitution.
We
live in a time when the lines of freedom are blurred and poorly
defined. The pendulum is swinging between freedom and accountability
and the rights of the many versus the rights of the individual.
Some
would suggest that Constitutional balance has been lost in recent
years, as we have myopically defended individual freedom at the expense
of the collective good.
Is it balance that says its OK to press
your demands for revenue on a city street and urinate in public, but
its not OK for another person to pra!
y in a p
ublic school?
If the behavior of panhandling can be casually defined as a form of free speech, just what exactly isnt a form of free speech?
Whereas
I would agree we need to judiciously guard our Constitutional freedoms,
I believe we mock that priority through political correctness and an
indifference to a common sense that supports the common good.
In
contrast to the Citizen-Times and the ACLU, I believe that we have an
ordinance that has helped us move closer to that illusive point between
indulgence and indifference.
Let Constitutional scholars shine a light on the legalities of our course and correct us if we are wrong.
In
the mean time we will have responded to the reality that there are
wolves among the sheep and that making [politically] safe decisions
does not always support the safety of those we represent.
I am
appreciative of the privilege of being one of seven who was charged
with the responsibility of studying and listening and then making a
definitive decision as an elected representative.
It can be well argued that we didnt do our job perfectly. The complexities of government rarely find us so lucky.
With
your support, however, we intend to continue to flaw and flunk our way
forward through those complexities and to persist in our efforts to do
it right.
|
