The Davis City Council requested a discussion on the issue of panhandling, particularly as it involves the downtown and, to a lesser extent, neighborhood shopping centers.
As staff notes, “It should be noted that homelessness and panhandling are different: some panhandlers are homeless, some are not. Some homeless individuals panhandle; many do not.” Moreover, “Panhandling itself is not illegal; it is a protected form of speech and cannot be banned. In general, a person has a right to ask for or show a sign asking for assistance.”
However, time, manner and place of panhandling or solicitations can be regulated “in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the solicitors and others in the community.”
Staff does list some tools that they have to address problems with panhandlers, as well as assist those individuals in need.
- Aggressive Panhandling. Aggressive panhandling is prohibited by State law. Aggressive and intrusive solicitation typically includes approaching or following pedestrians, the use of abusive language, unwanted physical contact, or the intentional blocking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The City may pass a local ordinance to further clarify or reinforce this, if it wishes.
- Prohibition Against Panhandling within 50’ of an ATM. Individuals are not permitted to solicit for funds within 50 feet of an automated teller machine. This protects the privacy and safety of people who are making financial transactions.
- Police Department Homelessness Team. Although not specific to panhandling, the Davis Police Department has designated a team of officers to work directly with the homeless population. In addition to law enforcement, the officers outreach with the homeless community and attempt to provide information about services. The team may interact with panhandlers to determine if they are homeless.
- Service Cards. The City and service providers have cards with information about local services to provide to people who might need them, including panhandlers asking for assistance.
- Social Services. While Davis does not provide all the services an individual may need to reenter mainstream society, the community is fortunate to have available an array of services for those in need. Yolo County, local non-profits (Davis Community Meals, Short Term Emergency Aid Committee, Grace in Action, Empower Yolo, etc.) and the faith community (Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter, individual programs, etc.) all provide services to address basic human needs. The City participates in the countywide Homeless Coordination Project, funds local service providers through Community Development Block Grant funds, provides partial funding for a homeless coordinator, and hosts a Crisis Intervention position at the Police Department to interact directly with individuals who may need assistance.
- Miscellaneous Enforcement Options. While not directly related to panhandling, the City has several other tools to use to address inappropriate behavior, sometimes exhibited by individuals who are also panhandling. Possessing open containers of alcohol, public intoxication, littering, engaging in disorderly conduct, and lodging illegally are all currently against the law in Davis.
The staff report outlines several examples from other communities which attempt to balance the need to address problems associated with panhandling with the need to provide services and assistance to those in need.
To address “deceptive solicitation,” where the person falsely claims to be in need in order to solicit a donation, staff notes, “Commonly prohibited actions include claiming that the solicitor is stranded in town and needs money to get home, the solicitor is a former member of the military, the solicitor is homeless (if they are not), and other similar false statements.”
Staff writes, “These ordinances are not as prevalent as aggressive solicitation bans, but are nonetheless used.”
There are also location restrictions where ordinances are enacted that ban panhandling in certain clearly defined and specific areas. Many cities also have ordinances that set limits on how close to certain types of buildings and locations panhandling can occur. “Common areas distance restrictions are usually areas where people are dealing directly with cash, (ATMs, banks and other financial institutions) bus and other public transportation depots, vending machines, public telephones, etc.”
There are time restrictions where many cities restrict panhandling after dark. Others have restricted soliciting from people in vehicles. This prevents panhandlers from approaching vehicles in the roadways, causing nuisance and potential hazards.
Staff notes that, while panhandling is not always carried out by someone who is homeless, “there is some overlap between the City’s response to panhandling and local efforts to assist individuals who are experiencing homelessness. Last summer City staff began convening meetings with representatives of the Chamber, Davis Downtown, Davis Community Church, Davis Community Meals, Grace in Action, STEAC, and the Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter in an effort to further coordinate efforts and responses around the issue of homelessness.”
At the time of those meetings, the city saw an increase in the number of individuals engaged in panhandling, “primarily by individuals outside of the community of individuals experiencing homelessness.”
Staff notes, “There was also discussion about the benefits of connecting individuals to services rather than providing funds directly to a person.”
There was a summit held that created a list of action items, including: increased coordination of local volunteer and donation needs; creation of a round-the-clock resource hotline and drop-in resource center; discussion regarding development of a year-round emergency shelter or a drug and alcohol detox facility; implementation of an outreach and education campaign about the faces of homelessness and availability of services; and development of a coordinated entry and assessment system into local services and housing.
Staff concludes with some suggestions. It warns, “Laws regarding panhandling must be aimed at specific behaviors and acts, not a person’s status as a panhandler or otherwise. Restricting panhandling must be justified and defined.” Staff recommends, “Any policy considerations be vetted through local community discussions, including relevant commissions, before any additional steps are taken.”
Possibilities include:
- Ordinance like the Los Angeles ordinance entitled “Prohibition Against Certain Forms of Aggressive Solicitation” – It was determined, after legal review, that most of this approach violated free speech rights by regulating content of speech and broadly restricting against solicitation. The only portion that was upheld was the prohibition from aggressive panhandling, which Davis already has in place. Further restrictions similar to what Los Angeles had explored is not an option.
- Ban on panhandling within a certain distance of outdoor dining – This would prohibit panhandling within a certain distance from outdoor dining establishments, under the provision of a “captive audience.” There are concerns that this type of provision may be difficult to defend. Defining the captive audience or applicable dining establishments may be more susceptible to legal challenge and harder to legally justify. If there is truly a well-documented problem of persistent panhandlers outside of outdoor patios and dining establishments, a provision could be modeled after a similar rule in Woodland.
- A focused ordinance reiterating the illegality of aggressive panhandling and including specific locations or restrictions where panhandling is prohibited (near ATMs, in intersections, entrances to shopping centers, median strips, after a person has refused a donation, etc.). Staff would need to work with the city attorney on this to determine legality of the various options.
- Focus city efforts on the provision of services to individuals in need, without additional enforcement efforts, in hopes of reducing the need for panhandling within the community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Prepare to be frustrated. First Amendment rights allow panhandlers to ply their trade in virtually any circumstance. Forget the notion of preventing “deceptive panhandling” simply because there is not practical way to background anybody who says he/she is a veteran, severely handicapped, recently divorced, unfairly terminated, and a host of other sympathy-generating circumstances. Alas, even the homeless can be deceitful.
Separate homelessness from panhandling. Each requires a distinct approach, even though many folks fit both categories. Social service options are there, but here is the kicker. Many homeless persons–fully aware of these services–choose NOT to avail themselves of these services. The reasons are many, too many to detail here. But ignorance of available services for such persons is NOT a primary issue deserving of additional effort.
Prediction: When all is said and done, lots will be said, nothing will be done. BTW, it’s been around here for generations, didn’t anybody notice?
Phil, can shopping center owners prohibit panhandling within privately owned shopping centers? What are the legal issues associated with this? Will the police be able to do anything if they are called about panhandling in a shopping center?
They cannot because while they are privately owned, they are open to the public – it’s why they can’t prevent petitioners either in most cases.
Exactly. As long as the general public has access, private property rights are subordinate to First Amendment protection of free speech and assembly.
What about citing them for loitering? I know that at least one of the shopping centers in Davis has posted signs that loitering is prohibited.
I think we should get clarification on that.
Yes, I hope that Phil can tell us whether laws against loitering can be used to deal with the panhandling situation.
prepare to be frustrated? i am frustrated because you are falling into the trap of viewing this as a nuisance rather than a human rights issue
There is a solution. Do not give them anything unless they work for it… at least doing something entertaining. Then they will go elsewhere if they can’t get handouts.
The “problem” is the handouts.
“there is some overlap between the City’s response to panhandling and local efforts to assist individuals who are experiencing homelessness. Last summer City staff began convening meetings with representatives of the Chamber, Davis Downtown, Davis Community Church, Davis Community Meals, Grace in Action, STEAC, and the Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter in an effort to further coordinate efforts and responses around the issue of homelessness.”
Within this statement is what I see as one major contributor to the ongoing problem. We have many wonderful individuals and groups attempting to address from their individual perspective, a societal problem that is really in need of a comprehensive fully collaborative, integrated program that encompasses needs assessment, resources and facilitation of long term solutions as well as short term aide ( meals, temporary housing, clothing) all under one “roof”, whether that is a physical or an electronic “roof”. I applaud the efforts of the city to coordinate efforts and would encourage further and more rigorous efforts to integrate public and private efforts in this area.
i think this is right. i’m concerned that the city seems to be addressing this as a nuisance issue rather than a gap in services.
If, as Phil Coleman has said (paraphrasing), the services are available and many choose not to avail themselves of the services, how is that a “gap in services?”
choice is a strange choice of words when you talk about a population heavily impacted by a combination of substance abuse and mental illness. do we really have the services to treat these issues or simply services to put a bandaid on the problem?
There are very strong elements of choice involved in substance abuse.
I will defer to people who actually know more about the homeless to answer your question. I do know that services are available. I don’t know what percentage of the homeless are mentally ill to the point of being unable to make choices. Do you?
i’m hoping robb davis or robert canning will jump in here, but remember substance abuse often coincides with mental illness as attempts to self-medicate…
I found this information from one of the Albuquerque TV stations. Perhaps the City Council could consider something like this?
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4624#.VY2HgvlViko
15% of donations are ‘skimmed’ for admin and fundraising, locally. UW Central NM has that down to 10%.
UW provides no services… it is a ‘clearing house’ for member service groups, who also have admin and fund-raising costs.
There is no overhead expenses to give to a panhandler. Just saying.
The closer to the provider of direct services, the better.
if you have an organization with staffing, you have to pay for those staffers. 10 to 15 percent doesn’t seem out of line.
Why pay 15% to a “middleman” that provides no services?
let’s pick davis community meals. so you have a service they perform. they also have paid staff like bill pride. are you saying that there is a direct approach that would do the function of davis community meals?
What I’m saying, is don’t give the money to United Way, who takes their cut, to distribute what’s left to DCM, STEAC, etc. Give to the organizations actually providing the services…
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that it’s much better to donate directly to organizations that help the disadvantaged rather than giving money to panhandlers.
Here’s what I have seen a number of times. People will give money to a panhandler. Typically these panhandlers will be at the exit from a shopping center parking lot where the cars have to stop for traffic and the “donor” is in a vehicle. Later that same day I see the same panhandler purchasing beer and cigarettes.
Yes, there is no overhead when you give money directly to a panhandler, but you should be realistic about what that panhandler is going to do with the money.
Personally I think it’s much better to give the money to a local charity that helps disadvantaged people.
Has anyone visited SF recently? Homelessness and panhandling are Out of hand with the streets reaking of urine and feces. Is this where Davis is headed?
i go to san francisco fairly frequently and i would say homelessness and panhandling are not nearly as bad as they were 20 years ago. is davis headed this direction? doubt it, though there are some commonalities with affordability and lack of affordable space – still sf is in a different galaxy from davis.
Some random thoughts:
As noted by others, panhandlers in Davis are a mix of housed and unhoused individuals.
David mentioned a recent summit concerning homelessness. There will be more reporting about it in the upcoming weeks but it included representatives of the police, County social services, City housing and social service staff, representatives of all Davis-based non-profits, faith groups, the DA, the Chamber, and members of downtown businesses. A few things coming out of that meeting: 1) there ARE gaps in service (very limited de-tox facilities, no meth treatment program, lack of housing for a “housing first” model); 2) services related to food are NOT lacking; 3) coordination of services with “one front door”access to services is needed; 4) co-existing needs: mental health/addiction are common among chronically homeless individuals.
For a better understanding of challenges of homelessness in Yolo County and Davis please see documents at these links (thanks Don Shor):
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/2015_Homeless_Count_Davis_Summary.pdf
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/2015_Yolo_County_Homeless_Count_Report.pdf
Again, panhandling does not equal homelessness.
Some panhandlers clearly have co-existing needs. Some use the money they collect for “self-medication” purposes.
There are efforts underway to provide ways for community members to provide resources to fill gaps rather than giving money to panhandlers. Public outreach on the risks and opportunities for giving directly to panhandlers versus giving to various social service providers is needed.
I have twice in the last few weeks been approached, once while at an ATM, and once leaving the ATM.
Mansion Cellars’ back paths already smell of urine.
In downtown Sacramento, there is a restaurant and a coffee house that I frequent, both of which have pandhandlers come in and solicit people inside at their tables, as long as they can until they are thrown out.
As a coffee drinker, I appreciate the new downtown port-a-potty’s. Haven’t had to use one, but nice to know they are there.
I wish there were port-a-potty’s on BART trains.
The original article says that it is prohibited to solicit within 50 feet of an ATM, so you should be able to call the police and have them deal with the problem individual.
One can understand the rationale of a local ordinance for prohibiting persons from begging near a cash dispensing machine. We go up to an ATM and are confronted by one or more folks “down on their luck” as we walk away with several $20 bills in hand . We don’t like it, feel like we are being preyed upon, are intimidated, and certainly would give consideration for never doing it again.
On the last point alone, banks don’t like this event either.
Taking all that as a given, were this ordinance ever to go before the Supreme Court–and challenged based on the longstanding Supreme Court rulings of begging being Free Speech–this ordinance and other like it would be doomed. You could hear the appellate lawyer saying to the Court: “Nobody should lose their Bill of Rights protections simply because they’re near an ATM machine.”
I strongly doubt such ordinances are enforced now with any degree of vigor, and even less often are they prosecuted.
So what would happen if this happened to me and I called the Davis PD? Would they just talk to the panhandler and tell him not to do it again or would they take some other action?
Davis is getting what it deserves. They coddle the homeless instead of cracking down on them. There is an old truism that basically goes “what you subsidize you get more of, what you tax you get less of” and Davis is certainly getting more homeless simply because they subsidize the homeless lifestyle by paying for their food, shelter, healthcare and so forth. Of course the place is run by liberals so it’s no surprise they don’t understand this rather simple economic principle. You want to get rid of the homeless, then TAX them instead of subsidizing them. If they can’t pay the tax then force them to leave. Liberals love new taxes, so create a homeless tax that makes it very expensive to be homeless there, and you’ll get less of them.
Clem, you’ve got it right. Davis is a go to destination for homeless and panhandlers thanks to our welcoming policies. The problem isonly going to get worse.
How can we convince people in Davis to not give money to panhandlers? If people would instead donate that money to organizations that help the disadvantaged, we would not have the panhandling problem.
How times change. Just a few decades back I never saw a single homeless person.
What is “lodging illegally?” Is that sort of like breathing illegally? Or is it just a vague phrase that can be interpreted however might be convenient at the time by the guy with the law book and the gun? Oink!
In the early 1990’s when I lived in Berkeley, panhandling became a huge issue. I could get into details, but take the problems that are happening in Davis and multiply it 10x.
Berkeley has a pretty stringent ordinance now to protect their downtown businesses. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. Community education was a very important part of changing the environment and what it came down to was to ask the community to not give cash directly to panhandlers. A gift voucher was created that people could use for hotels, food, washing clothes, showers, etc, but not cigarettes and alcohol, that people could hand out. Donation boxes for local services were placed everywhere.
Yes, there needs to be an effort to educate people in Davis not to give cash directly to panhandlers.
I have talked with several people that feel rather intimidated and a bit threatened by some of the panhandlers.
Never gave cash, but have given gift cards to Nugget (for groceries), and when downtown, accompanied them to Jack in the Box, gave the money to the clerk and told them to give the guy a meal. Probably should have specified no sugary drinks, but I didn’t.
+1.
I now resort to the “I give to my church” to communicate that I care (I do), but that I don’t want to support the homeless lifestyle / drug / alcohol issues.
How about giving them a hand up instead of a hand out. Lets find creative ways of employing the homeless. Giving these people freebies is not the solution.
Clem
“Lets find creative ways of employing the homeless. “
I think that this is a great suggestion. What jobs do you have in mind ?
Tree trimmers, landscapers, painters, window washers, janitors, cook, dishwashers, farm labors, etc.
Most of these people have some sort of skill set.
Clem
“Tree trimmers, landscapers, painters, window washers, janitors, cook, dishwashers, farm labors, etc.
Most of these people have some sort of skill set.”
I’m still on board. Now how would you suggest implementing this ?
I think there is a lack of reality here. Take painting. There are skills to prepping (80% of the work), and it is not necessarily easy. To do a good job requires care and attention to detail. Not to mention showing up on time, having tools, being responsible, etc. Landscaping is physical work, and I’m told laborers earn $10 an hour or less for working in the sun or rain.
Many of these jobs are now dominated by illegal immigrants who are younger, will work harder and longer. It is part of a cycle. Many have families here or in Mexico, so they have motivation to send money home; many have religious support via their faith and church. In my interactions with homeless, many don’t have this motivation or support, and they oftentimes have the drug / mental health issues.
FWIW, The Enterprise just ran an article a month ago lauding a famous homeless person in Davis and all of his fans.
Yes, unfortunately most of the people who are panhandling have serious problems that preclude them from holding a regular job. These problems include mental illness, substance abuse, developmental disabilities, criminal records, physical disabilities, and a lack of interpersonal skills. In order to perform meaningful work, many of these individuals would need a great deal of assistance with their underlying problems.
Discussion from last year:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/no-handouts-for-homeless-on-street-group-to-teach/
Thanks for posting that Don. I must have missed it last year. I have not seen anything since then to educate people not to give cash directly to panhandlers. I do see people giving cash on a fairly frequent basis, so it seems that we still have the problem of the citizens not understanding that this only encourages more panhandling.
Perhaps individual retailers could and shopping center owners could post signage asking people to give donations to social service organizations instead of giving cash directly to panhandlers?
Perhaps individual retailers , shopping center owners, the city of Davis, and of course UCD could employ these individuals.
After all they are simply homeless not helpless…
Or perhaps you could.
I do.
In bigger cities, a big chunk have drug or mental health issues.
I large chunk of the population in California have drug or mental issues.
Not equal to these numbers or severity.
When will this issue be on the city council’s agenda?
Tuesday
I am going to address this in a way I have not yet seen in the conversation.
I believe that this is, and should be a matter of personal choice. The decision to give money directly to an individual who requests it is a private transaction between two individuals. I choose not to handle my interpersonal transactions by giving strangers money. I donate directly to the service agencies that I trust to spend my donations directly on services to those I intend to help. I also take the hpierce route of asking the individual if they are hungry. If the answer is yes, I accompany them into the closest healthy food restaurant ( since I choose not to support junk food chains) and purchase them the healthy food of their choice ( within my pre decided price range). My partner handles it differently being willing to give money directly to them. I do not choose to take the chance that they will spend it on tobacco, alcohol or other drugs. Except where personal safety is involved, I think that the city should confine themselves to suggesting best practices and letting individuals handle this situation according to their personal preference.
Yes, of course it is a matter of personal choice whether to give money directly to panhandlers. What I am suggesting is that there be some effort by retailers and shopping center owners to educate people that they do have the choice to donate to social service organizations rather than being intimidated to give cash to panhandlers. As far as what the City Council should do, they can provide information to the citizens about various social service organizations that they can donate to.
TopCat
I guess that I am wondering why anyone would feel intimidated into giving anyone money. I am not a large or intimidating woman and I have never felt intimidated into giving money to anyone. I have no difficulty saying no if I do not have the time to handle this in my preferred method above. I am wondering if anyone in town has been physically threatened or felt coerced into giving money. I have not experienced, nor seen this happen in Davis, although I have seen aggressive begging in other countries.
I understand that you don’t feel intimidated by the panhandlers, but I know several women who have told me that they feel very uncomfortable and frightened when passing by panhandlers asking for money. I think that some people are just naturally more fearful than others.
What if you feed feral cats or hungry wild bears that don’t actually live in your community but come in for handouts. Is that a responsible thing to do?
From the National Park Service: Allowing a bear to obtain human food, even once, often results in aggressive bear behavior. Aggressive bears are a threat to human safety and must be relocated or killed.
If people understood that giving cash to panhandlers is like giving food to wild bears, we might not be having the panhandling problem.
TopCat
“If people understood that giving cash to panhandlers is like giving food to wild bears, we might not be having the panhandling problem.”
And if people understood that panhandlers are humans, just like the remainder of the humans who are practicing more socially condoned ways of meeting their needs, we also would not have the “panhandling problem” since we would not be defining the very existence of panhandlers ( as opposed to con artists or aggressive panhandlers) as a problem.
There is simply not universal agreement that non threatening, honest appeals for money is a “problem”. I for one have no problem whatsoever with solicitation for money. I see this as basically no different than large adds soliciting my business put up by business owners. I do not find most of those aesthetically appealing either and would rather they were not there. But a problem ? No. I am a big girl. I don’t have to shop at any given location regardless of the size of their signs or whether or not they have a front person on the street soliciting business. Likewise, I do not have to give to the panhandler who makes a request for money.
Then we have the “professional” panhandlers. Haven’t seen them in Davis for awhle, but ran into them at least twice @ Oak Tree Plaza. Possibly those characterized as “Roma”/”Romany”/Gypsy. On one occaision, saw them by the Pole Line Road driveway, with the obligatory cardboard sign. On my way out, saw the dad changing the infant they had, in the back of a practically new SUV. No sign that they were ‘living out of it’. Fairly well dressed.
A few years ago I encountered the “Crying Girl”. She would approach people in tears and said that she was stranded and needed $40 for train fare to get home. Her tears and story seemed authentic since she was a very good actress. If you watched her, she would go back to her accomplice who was waiting in a parked car for her to come back with the cash.
Her case was written up in the Enterprise and I never saw her again after that.
https://daviswiki.org/Crying_Girl_Con_Artist