Most days you can’t walk more than a few feet down Michigan Avenue without encountering a panhandler, a street performer, a StreetWise newspaper vendor, or any number of people hawking wares or collecting for charitable or political causes.
For many people, that’s part of the city’s charm. It’s not supposed to be as hushed as a library or scoured of the noise, hubbub and, yes, sometimes strident entreaties for spare change.
Enter Ald. Burton Natarus, who over the years has campaigned against excessive noise, rude rollerbladers, “undiapered” carriage horses and risque store window displays of lingerie.
Natarus has a new campaign: stopping aggressive, intimidating panhandlers. Under a proposed ordinance he recently introduced, panhandlers would be fined up to $100 if they touch people they solicit, block their paths, or use “profane or abusive language.” The ordinance also would bar panhandling at bus stops, on public buses and trains, in restaurants or sidewalk cafes or within 10 feet of an automatic teller machine, or bank or currency exchange entrance.
“We don’t want to stop people asking for money if they are homeless, but we’re saying if you ask for money, you have to do it in a reasonable way,” he says.
“If you become aggressive and pushy, that is interfering with someone else’s rights.”
No argument there. There are panhandlers who are too aggressive and menacing. No one relishes a confrontation with a hostile panhandler. But there doesn’t seem to be any overwhelming evidence to show that there’s a huge problem here. Police already have plenty of discretion when it comes to shooing off aggressive panhandlers. There are laws against disorderly conduct, for instance. And most of the time, cops have better things to do.
A new law isn’t necessary.
In 2002, the city repealed a sweeping anti-panhandling law after a constitutional challenge that ended up costing the city $375,000 in lawyers’ fees and other costs. The new proposed ban, which is more narrowly defined and is modeled after one in Indianapolis, has passed constitutional muster there, according to the city’s Law Department.
The new ordinance, if passed, may indeed be more defensible. But two years ago, after the city scrapped its anti-panhandling law, some officials observed that there were other laws on the books that could handle out-of-control panhandlers. That’s right.
Mayor Richard Daley hasn’t indicated yet whether he will back Natarus’ proposal. He shouldn’t. It’s not worth the trouble.
