Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Arkansas newspapers:
Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. July 30, 2017.
Virtually everyone, we think, would prefer a world in which there was no panhandling.
That includes the panhandlers.
But for a thousand reasons, the act of begging for money isn’t going anywhere. The poor will always be with us, we’re told on good authority. As fellow humans on the journey of life, they deserve compassion. Let those of us who have never faced such dire circumstances be thankful.
Communities, however, must face situations a little differently than individuals can. A single panhandler asking a passer-by for help isn’t too serious a matter, but is there a local government interest if panhandling becomes a nuisance? What if it takes root in a particular part of town? For example, is it reasonable to expect some concern and possibly action from local leaders if panhandlers en masse descend on the Farmers’ Market every Saturday morning in Fayetteville? Or what if they became a mainstay of First Fridays on the Bentonville Square? Are towns that spend millions trying to attract visitors supposed to just sit still while panhandlers create such situations?
Some advocates say yes, that protecting the individual rights of Americans (yes, panhandlers are Americans, too) is more important than community discomfort. Community leaders, however, hear from constituents, the folks they see at the barbershop or at the mall. It’s entirely understandable they might want to set limits on behaviors that can be disruptive. While constitutionality may not be their first concern, it eventually must become a concern. Government leaders draft ordinances - it’s what they do - that in the best light attempt to balance the needs of the many and the needs of the one, to borrow a phrase from a certain Vulcan.
Sometimes cities get it right. Sometimes they don’t. And it’s not unusual for a court case to be involved in determining what “right” looks like.
The city of Rogers recently ditched its solicitation ordinance, which had come under legal attack by the American Civil Liberties Union. The organization sued because of the ordinance’s impact on panhandlers, who in other cities have won some recent federal court cases that recognized First Amendment protections for their sign-holding activities. In essence, a man with a piece of cardboard saying “God Bless. Homeless. Anything will help” is at least as protected under our Constitution as high school cheerleader standing street side holding a “Free Car Wash” sign for a fundraiser. Perhaps even more so.
Rogers Mayor Greg Hines and the City Council don’t care much for being sued, naturally. But in this case, they apparently recognized some shortcomings in their approach to panhandlers, shortcomings they chose not to defend in court.
But that doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all now for panhandlers in Rogers. On the same night, the City Council approved an ordinance that prohibits anyone from approaching an occupied vehicle “in operation” on a public street. From a legal perspective, the ordinance would appear to have avoided regulation of “solicitations” and instead relies on traffic safety. In short, a guy can stand on public property all day long holding a sign, but the moment he approaches an occupied vehicle operating on a public street - such as one in which a passenger rolls a window down to hand him $5 - he’s in violation of the city’s traffic safety measure.
Bettina Brownstein, a lawyer for the ACLU, says the new ordinance still goes too far. The act of panhandling is the protected constitutional behavior, she said, not just the display of a sign. “It is overbroad, overly restrictive in regard to the First Amendment,” she said.
Jennifer Waymack, senior staff attorney for Mayor Hines and the city, says the act of approaching a vehicle on a public street is what’s being regulated. That goes for everyone, whether it’s someone asking for directions, a political candidate asking for votes or a panhandler asking for money. Motorists are welcome to pull off the public street if they want to give money to a panhandler, and pedestrians on the sidewalk can certainly do so, she said.
We ran Rogers’ legal approach past an attorney involved in municipal law in another city. He said it was an interesting approach. He also said he was more than willing to let Rogers be a test case in the courts to determine whether it passes constitutional muster.
And sometimes, that’s what it takes to clearly define the boundaries between individual rights and efforts by government to restrict them. Mayor Hines last week explained the ACLU wanted an exception in the ordinance that specifically allows for panhandling. “That’s just not going to happen,” he said.
We have no doubt he’s representing his constituents with that comment.
We discourage lawmakers from passing laws they have every reason to believe will be ruled unconstitutional. But Rogers isn’t purposely stepping over the line; they’re trying to define it more clearly. Cities across our region - indeed, across the country - need that clarity.
In “A Guide to Regulating Panhandling by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,” author Kent S. Scheidegger wrote “As a result of a series of court cases and various interest group pressures, the police are formally or informally instructed to treat a community as an assemblage of individuals bearing rights rather than as a group of neighbors sharing interests.”
In fact, Rogers and other communities are both. With the help of the courts, perhaps there is hope that the needs of all can be properly balanced.
What Rogers appears to be saying is it’s ready to act constitutionally, but it’s an open question today as to what that means in regard to panhandlers and street safety. City leaders aren’t ready, it appears, to just toss aside any effort to maintain a standard for public conduct and public safety because the ACLU says so.
Stay tuned. We have a feeling this new ordinance is just begging for a legal challenge.
___
Texarkana Gazette. July 31, 2017.
Several new laws took effect Aug. 1 in Arkansas including a rise in maximum highway speed limits to 75 mph, allowing those with concealed carry permits to keep guns in their vehicles at work and prohibiting open alcohol containers in motor vehicles anywhere within the driver’s reach.
But the one that will likely have the most immediate effect - hopefully a chilling effect - on the most people is a fine on anyone caught texting behind the wheel.
Texting while driving is already against the law. But now the first offense won’t just carry a warning, it will also come with a fine up to $250. Each subsequent violation can cost a driver up to $500.
And if there is an accident and the driver is texting, even on the first offense, the fine doubles to $500. The new law also includes using Facebook, Twitter or other social media within the ban on texting.
In our view it’s about time.
Distracted driving is dangerous, sometimes even fatal. The original ban on texting is known as “Paul’s Law” after a Jonesboro man named Paul Davidson, a father of three who died in a head-on collision with a driver who told police he was texting at the time.
The U.S. Department of Transportation says those who text while driving are 23 times more likely to have an accident. The National Safety Council says texting causes 1 out of every 4 accidents. That adds up to more than 330,000 injuries each year.
Maybe the monetary costs of getting caught texting behind the wheel will finally make some drivers pay attention to the very real costs in pain and suffering. We hope so.
___
The Pine Bluff Commercial. July 31, 2017.
We had a chance to visit the Merrill Center recently, and we have to be honest - it made us want to be a kid again. Seeing all those bright young faces scurrying around and enjoying life made us long for the care-free days of childhood.
But as an adult observer, we couldn’t help but notice that the Merrill Center is in dire need of renovations. It’s run down to the point of being an embarrassment to our community.
Instead of renovating it, though, why not build a new one? While we are at it, let’s build community/youth centers in all four wards of Pine Bluff. What better way for the city to show its residents that they matter? Each center should have a place for youth to play, a police substation, meeting rooms, and perhaps a small market where fresh food is available or where locals could peddle crafts or other wares.
Former Pine Bluff Mayor Debe Hollingsworth pushed for a renovation of the Merrill Center, which serves as many as 300 kids a day during summer months, in her first months in office. After local architect Fred Reed conducted a scope of work, the council’s Public Works Committee recommended that the City Council allocate $450,000 from the 2011 five-eighths cent reserve fund to renovate the facility. The reserve fund is comprised of tax revenue collected before bonds were issued to pay for various infrastructure projects and which is not bound to a specific project.
But the aldermen axed the notion. And here we sit, years later, with a still-run-down Merrill Center. From what we have been told, that money is still available for use. And it’s desperately needed. It could help fund construction of a new Merrill Center. And there’s also the Go Forward Pine Bluff tax money, which will be available in early 2018.
Additionally, the city is trying to raise funds to build a multi-purpose center that’s supposed to be located somewhere near City Hall. We feel that’s a mistake. Multi-purpose centers (youth centers, community centers, whatever name you want to give them) belong in neighborhoods. Our city must show residents that it wants to invest in them and their future.
We already have a large multi-purpose center in the Pine Bluff Convention Center. And while it could use a freshening up, we don’t need another one. According to youth.gov, a government-sponsored website offering information on issues affecting youth, effective after school programs and youth/community centers bring a wide range of benefits to youth, families and communities. After school programs can boost academic performance, reduce risky behaviors, promote physical health, and provide a safe, structured environment for the children of working parents.
The website says that:
- Attending after school programs can improve students’ academic performance.
- Effective after school programs can improve classroom behavior, school attendance, academic aspirations, and can reduce the likelihood that a student will drop out.
- Participation in after school programs has been associated with reduced drug use and criminal behavior.
- After school programs can play an important role in encouraging physical activity and good dietary habits.
- Working families and businesses also derive benefits from after school programs that ensure that youth have a safe place to go while parents are at work. Parents concerned about their children’s after school care miss an average of eight days of work per year, and this decreased worker productivity costs businesses up to $300 billion annually.
Come on, Pine Bluff. Let’s build these community centers.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.