Author: Mike

Last time they voted to “advertise” the anti-soliciting ordinances. This week was the final step of the process. Economou, Eddy, Germain, Lukes, Palmieri, Rushton, Russell, Toomey, and Petty voted yes. O’Brien and Rivera voted no.

The City Manager reiterated his confidence that the city’s lawyers did a good job drafting this and the city won’t lose a lawsuit over it. He also said that outreach workers have talked to frequent solicitors and they know about the ordinances and penalties.

The Council asked for a report in 30 days about how enforcement is going.

The Telegram & Gazette, in an article today, outlined the time-and-place restrictions in this plan, those being the parts that have generated the most controversy yet have not been discussed in public by the Council or mentioned (until today) in traditional media. Since they Council didn’t debate the specifics of the plan, just asked some questions about implementation and reporting, they didn’t use this final opportunity to answer the concerns. Maybe I’m naive, but this still amazes me.

Update: Here’s a photo of a handout on the ordinance. It doesn’t mention the many time and place restrictions. Odd.

Last night the Worcester City Council voted in favor of its third anti-panhandling plan in recent years. Councilors O’Brien and Rivera voted no; Councilor Germain was absent.

This plan has three parts: discouraging people from running into traffic, discouraging “aggressive” behavior while begging, and banning asking for help in various times and places.

The time-and-place restrictions are the ones that have had me, the ACLU, and other residents up in arms over this plan. Once again, the City Councilors completely ignored the time-and-place restrictions in their discussions. I even began the public comment section by giving chapter-and-verse on these sections, and directly asking them to be addressed, but to no avail. This disregard was even more amazing after Konnie Lukes berated the audience for not reading the ordinances, and then Rick Rushton explained the ordinances completely backwards, saying soliciting on sidewalks would not be affected, whereas an entire third of this plan, conceptually, is about restricting times and places of soliciting on sidewalks. I am a little discouraged but mostly amazed.

Worcester Magazine has notes.

This week the Worcester City Council Joint Public Health and Human Services and Municipal Operations Committee met to discuss Worcester’s third proposed anti-panhandling plan. These measures would affect men who stand on street corners holding signs, people asking for a quarter on the street, and kids and non-profits soliciting donations at intersections.

There are three kinds of restrictions in the proposed set of ordinances.

1. The first try to keep people from wandering on traffic islands and in the road.
2. The second try to keep people from being persistent or scary in their soliciting.
3. The third name times and places in which soliciting is banned. These would include after dusk, from people walking, near ATMs, near entrances to buildings, near bus stops, near restaurants with outdoor seating, and any “place of public assembly.”

At the Joint Committee meeting, various representatives of businesses and business groups spoke in favor of some action on panhandling, though not so much the specific proposals. Other people spoke against the proposals, specifically the third kind of time-and-place restrictions, as being objectionable on civil liberties or ethical grounds, or as making Worcester a slightly-less-human city.

The Councilors, Deputy City Manager, and City Solicitor then spoke thoughtfully and compassionately about the first 2 kinds of restrictions and didn’t mention the third at all, before voting (with one dissent) to send these proposals to the full City Council for a vote. (That vote could happen as early as the January 15 City Council meeting.)

When I confronted one Councilor about this after the meeting, the Councilor at first denied that the third kind of restriction was in the proposals at all, then expressed surprise upon seeing that it was.

I’ve emailed the other Joint Committee members about this, on the chance that they’d also voted on a proposal they hadn’t read, but there’s been no comment from them.

I hope that the Councilors and Solicitor will discuss the time-and-place restrictions when this comes before the full Council, because some of the phrases in there sound kinda extreme to a layman (“all . . . places of public assembly”) but might have a less-extreme legal meaning.

Here’s the text of my remarks to the Council, followed by some Twitter notes from the meeting. If you’d like to see a less-snarky collection of notes, Worcester Magazine also live-blogged it.
Continue reading “Worcester’s third anti-panhandling plan: Joint Committee votes yes”