After debating for weeks a controversial ordinance limiting panhandling, Evanston City Council on Monday voted 8-1 to approve an amended version of the measure that they hope will lessen First Amendment concerns.
The ordinance now treats panhandling as unlawful when it occurs in sidewalk cafés, or in public transportation vehicles or facilities.
The changes also would limit panhandling within 10 feet of ATMs; panhandling 15 seconds after a person has used an ATM; repeated requests for money; touching the person being solicited; blocking the path of a solicited person or an entrance to a building; using profane or abusive language; or making any statement other than a request for money that would make a solicited person feel unsafe.
Ald. Melissa Wynne (3rd) introduced the changes, which followed recommendations initially made Jan. 8 by Evanston resident and attorney Carol Moschandreas. Moschandreas reiterated her free speech concerns Monday night after the council’s Human Services committee returned the ordinance to aldermen last week without incorporating her suggestions.
“We would have been vulnerable by passing it in the same form,” Wynne said. “We need to pass an ordinance that will withstand court scrutiny.”
The ordinance is modeled after a measure approved in Indianapolis that had its constitutionality upheld in federal court. That law included regulations on the hours during which a person could panhandle, and more extensively limited the places where panhandling was outlawed.
But Ald. Stephen Engelman (7th), the only alderman to vote against the ordinance, said the changes didn’t go far enough in terms of protecting free speech.
“Free speech is probably the most important right, and we’ve had wars to protect it,” Engelman said. “(Panhandling) may be intimidating, but it is nothing but pure speech.”
Engelman said the city already has laws that prohibit harassment, so there is no need for another law that could tangle the city up in legal trouble.
“Constitutionality is a fine line, and I’m afraid we’ve stepped over that line,” Engelman said. “I don’t want to spend money on the fine line, and I don’t want to have to defend it in court.”
Some aldermen also expressed concern that the ordinance could not be easily enforced. The punishment for illegal panhandling — a non-criminal offense — is a $75 citation.
If the guilty party cannot afford the ticket, community service will be prescribed.
Ald. Ann Rainey (8th) said the hardest part will be ensuring that police catch panhandlers in the act.
“All of the pieces of the puzzle have to come together when the incident occurs,” she said. “I don’t think this ordinance is as bad as some say or as good as others say. But I don’t think it will stop the problem.”
Other aldermen worried the ordinance would unfairly target certain members of the population.
“I think we are talking about a targeted group of people here, who have no advocates for themselves,” said Ald. Joseph Kent (5th). “I try to give the police department every benefit of the doubt. But we all know mistakes are made every day.”
Kent said that if he would let his hair go unwashed for a week and dress in shoddy clothes, he could easily be mistaken for someone who might panhandle.
“I see people that look like me,” he said. “That to me is a big concern.”
But most aldermen agreed it was more important that the council aims to protect business interests and the privacy of Evanston residents.
“To allow the hopes and dreams for a thriving downtown Evanston to be affected negatively, and for Evanston to have a reputation of being uncomfortable and unsafe — that’s not something we want to do,” said Ald. Gene Feldman (9th), who noted that the ordinance would attempt to target “professional” panhandlers who “make their living by intimidation and threats.”
Ald. Steven Bernstein (4th) said he agreed.
“My ward includes constituents who are held hostage in their homes and who are not able to walk outside,” he said, referring to the senior citizens living in his ward. “Their appearance makes them easy prey. With the ordinance, the message will be out, and people will be able to walk around without fear.”
Ald. Dennis Drummer (2nd), who owns a small business, acknowledged that the ordinance could be labeled as a tool for racial profiling, but said rules against panhandling would prove to business owners that the council had their interests at heart.
“It’s a matter of economics,” Drummer said. “We can be as liberal as we want to be about it, but (panhandlers’) rights are not greater than mine. These people are breaking the law.”
Ideas similar to the ordinance have been discussed for years. Ald. Arthur Newman (1st) said the measure was requested by Evanston Police Department Chief Frank Kaminski after police decided that the city’s laws did not adequately protect women and senior citizens from intimidation.
“The ordinance is fair, the amendments are desired, and it’s right for this town,” Newman said. “(Panhandling) is designed to intimidate. That’s not free speech.”
