Our View: Panhandling crackdown needs careful crafting

‘There are places for people to congregate, we don’t need them on our sidewalks.” That’s from an e-mail message to the Spokane City Council in support of anti-panhandling ordinances.

On the contrary, we do need people on our sidewalks. But, to be blunt, the right people.

As language from one of the council’s proposed measures puts it: “An important factor in protecting public safety is attracting people to the streets and sidewalks of the city’s business districts, because the presence of many law-abiding citizens serves as a deterrent to crime and increases the public’s sense of security and the safety of all.”

It is a familiar problem in Spokane, Spokane Valley and most cities of any size. Cities, being centers of commerce, are where the people are. A city’s shoppers, tourists and workers, not to mention the availability of social services, make it a natural place for the disadvantaged to appeal to others’ charity.

Or, being blunt again, to beg.

But begging, especially the aggressive form, is a big turnoff to mainstream pedestrians who drive the core’s economic motor. When they start staying away, the city’s vitality suffers and everyone is worse off, including the poor.

Downtown Spokane businesses fear that may be happening. They report distressing incidents of customers, employees and other pedestrians being hassled by panhandlers and blocked by vagrants lying or sitting on the sidewalk. Now City Hall is being asked to better control such conduct.

The tricky part, as always, is to balance the rights of the shoppers with those of the down and out, who are citizens, too, and rightfully entitled to use public spaces.

In developing the pending ordinances, city officials wisely asked feedback from civil rights specialists, seeking to make sure the proposals, largely borrowed from other Washington cities, are constitutionally sound.

As things stand, the ordinances would not outlaw panhandling altogether, just in certain places, at certain times and under certain circumstances. They would not prohibit sitting or lying on the sidewalk to watch a parade or have a heart attack, for instance. They are narrowly targeted to discourage the indefensible tactics that make downtown visits feel risky.

During a hearing on Monday, the council was cautioned not to outlaw poverty, a reasonable entreaty. But it’s clear that that isn’t the intent. Indeed, services abound in this community to provide meals, services and shelter for the poor. The fact is, the cash that changes hands during these sidewalk solicitations feeds substance abuse more than it feeds hungry stomachs.

Still, council members should be ready to refine the language, if necessary, to make sure they are regulating undesirable conduct, not undesirable people.

The goal, after all, is people, lots of people, on our sidewalks.