Amid concerns from an attorney that a proposed panhandling ordinance would violate First Amendment rights, Evanston City Council on Monday voted 9-0 to send the controversial measure back to a committee for further review.
The ordinance, which would ban panhandling in certain public locations as well as at night, was originally scheduled for a final vote Monday. Instead, the Human Services committee will review the ordinance at its Jan. 16 meeting and then send it back to the council for its next scheduled meeting Jan. 22.
Prior to the council meeting, attorney and Evanston resident Carol Moschandres submitted to aldermen a lengthy protest of the ordinance. When she addressed the council, she contended its prohibition of verbal requests for money violates the free speech rights of all citizens – not just the homeless.
“Evanston is a place where people care about justice, about free speech,” Moschandres said at the meeting. “If we want to be law-abiding citizens, all of us will have to watch the way we act on the streets.”
For example, if someone asked a friend for change to feed a parking meter, Moschandres said, that person would be in violation of the ordinance under its description of panhandling.
She urged the council to revise the ordinance’s definition so that it defines panhandling in terms of behavior and not speech.
Moschandres also said the ordinance would unfairly apply to the poor, as those found in violation would face a fine or community service.
Even though the ordinance is based on an Indianapolis measure that was upheld by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the council voted to delay a vote on the rule after debating its constitutionality.
“The 7th Circuit has found the Indianapolis ordinance has met constitutional muster,” said Ald. Arthur Newman (1st), who called on the council to put the measure to a vote.
“There is no reason for this to go back to committee,” he said. “The Human Services committee has completed its work on this ordinance.”
Ald. Stephen Engelman (7th) countered: “Merely because an ordinance passes constitutional muster doesn’t mean it is an ordinance Evanston wants to pass.”
Engelman added that even with Moschandres’ changes he might not support it.
“I have serious concerns about the chilling impact – if not the constitutional impact – of this ordinance,” he said.
Ald. Edmund Moran (6th), who raised the motion to delay the vote, questioned the council’s commitment to maintaining citizens’ rights.
“First Amendment rights are something that is valued here in Evanston – I think by this council – but I am sure by the people,” he said. “We should send it back to committee, look at it and get it right.”
Eventually, the other aldermen persuaded Newman to vote for the motion.
Ald. Ann Rainey (8th) assured him that even though “one of the things we are very skilled at is holding things over,” the committee would review the ordinance and have it ready for a vote by the next council meeting.
After Monday’s meeting, Moschandres told The Daily she was satisfied with the council’s decision.
“I think it was a very good action,” she said. “They will give time to craft something better for Evanston.”
In other business at the meeting:
? Aldermen voted 9-0 to approve a Rules committee recommendation that the council’s three-member Negotiation committee be able to meet in private with Northwestern to discuss a financial contribution from the university.
? The council also voted 9-0 to send two separate issues involving the Evanston Parks and Recreation Department back to the Human Services committee.
The first issue concerns adoption of the department’s $100 million Strategic Master Plan for future development. The second measure is a potential referendum for the April election to raise $35 million for improvements to the Robert Crown Center.
Both issues will be revised and returned to the council at its Jan. 22 meeting.
