Skip to main content

The Panhandling Dilemma

For many homeless folk: “To panhandle or not to panhandle? That is the question."
Stolid citizens of Sacramento ask themselves: “Is it best to abruptly deny panhandlers their requests?”
SN&R News Editor Raheem F. Hosseini takes a helpful dash into the question of homeless people panhandling in this week’s edition [for  11/22/17] of the alternative weekly, which I’ll use to try to flesh out a further examination of the merits and demerits for solid citizens and needy desperate homeless citizens who put money in a hand or put out a hand for money.
Hosseini tells us that new laws took effect on Nov. 24 in the city that can damper down what success panhandlers can expect, since the money seekers are, for the most part, subject to punishment if their efforts to get some cash are perceived as aggressive, or, even, forthright – but in a circumstance that is no longer deemed lawful .
Regarding the new laws, Hosseini writes,
Under the new laws, anyone deemed to be causing a disturbance in a park can be cited with an infraction for failing to leave. If that person is cited three times in six months, he or she can be charged with a misdemeanor.
The more controversial law is the city’s new policy against “aggressive panhandling, “ which was drafted and approved without actual data about how often aggressive panhandling occurs. A city staff report says that the Police Department “has received complaints from residents, visitors, and businesses about aggressive or intrusive solicitations,” but provided no figures or statistics.
By the city’s definition, aggressive or intrusive solicitation can mean simply approaching a pedestrian, or asking for money when some citizen is a captive audience, which now pertains to when citizens are near banks or ATMs, bus- and light-rail stops, gas stations and outdoor dining areas. It’s now also illegal to solicit on roadway median strips, and near the driveways of shopping centers, retail and other business establishments.
I have no doubt that most people who see themselves as homeless advocates are aghast by the new laws.
As for me, my preference is that government and charities meet the most-basic needs for homeless people in Sacramento city and county. SNAP and EBT cards are readily provided to needy people to meet most of their need for food. More shelters and campgrounds need to be established to provide sleep space for all the people without a roof.  Food is being provided for people at Loaves & Fishes and at many, if not most, of the shelters, and that is going to continue to be the case.
I don’t want people to be panhandling. I don’t think that there is a “freedom of speech” right attached to panhandling. A person begging for money is seeking a one-way transaction: “I put out my hand; you put money into it.” That’s NOT an exchange. I don’t think that average citizens should be in situations where others are ogling their money. And I don’t think that poor people should count on panhandling as an income source.
The fix is, simply, that government needs to have a fully adequate program that guarantees the health and care of all poor people in its jurisdiction.
Meantime, poor people should seek, as most do, to improve their lot in life by getting job training and by pursuing jobs and quasi-volunteer positions where they are paid for their contributions to the effort of the organization where they work. Or, they should seek to improve their job skills to be better prepared for opportunities that might come along.
As for the new seemingly draconian laws that Hosseini describes, I think they could wither away if both average citizens and homeless people cease participating in money-for-nothing transactions.
 ----
I write all this, but I do understand that situations occur where it appears some poor person has soiled clothes and is on the ground with nothing good going for him or her.  In one way or another, these people need to be rescued. Giving money to someone who is a mess, and is directly in front of you, is a good-hearted thing to do.
I believe there are times when giving some poor messed-up person a fiver is salvific for the receiver, and it is a momentous thing that changes the direction of a life. Both the giver and the receiver of the money will never know that something wonderful happened. It will just have been very important without ever having been recognized, remembered or written down. I am not suggesting that God intervened. It is just a fortuitous happenstance. Or, dumb luck, if you want to call it that. One of those things that occur infrequently, in defiance of all the craziness, noise and tumult that dominates our walking-around and trying-to-get-things-done existence. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Mission Five Years Ago, And Today

I have spent the night the past two weeks plus at the Union Gospel Mission and am having an excellent time of it -- not only regards to sleeping in the dorm that the mission has, but also listening to the sermons that are delivered in the early evening. The Christmas music that is performed is also splendid. [And the food -- the FOOD -- has been fantastic during my stay so far! A happier Tom there couldn't be.] I chatted with a pal last night about The Mish – about how things were about five years ago when we both used the mission’s services frequently, and how thing are, today.
Five years ago, there were a lot scuffles between the guys when the front gate was opened in the early afternoon and in the area near the contact window there were some brawls as guys fought over where guys were in line to get a bed in the dorm.
Nowadays, however, the mission is very much a peaceful place both on the grounds of the facility and and out on the street.
I do not know what transformative eve…

Homeless Sacramentans lose case that would have given them the right to set up outdoor camping

8/11/13 I certainly give attorneys Mark Merin and Cat Williams credit for pursuing a case against the city of Sacramento to give homeless Sacramentans the right to set up tents and a campsite. I wanted them to win their case, but they didn't. They lost it.

BUT, it is also necessary to look at the particulars of the case that Merin and Williams brought and see that the situation underlying the court case was not very compelling.

During the period eight years ago when 22 homeless campers set up their tents and brought in supplies to Mark Merin's vacant lot at C Street, near 12th, there was loud noise and plenty of other mayhem. Drug dealers were on the street encouraging buys from the campers. The Hernandez couple that lived in a house nearby were constantly being taunted by the campers, disrupting their lives.

Per always with Safe Ground camps, calm was deserted for the sake of boisterousness.

Leader John Kraintz and the other Safe Grounders would claim to have signed strict a…

After a Three-Month Hiatus, a Fall from a Ladder & a Broken Wrist, Evangelist Jimmy Roughton Returns to Union Gospel Mission to Preach

After being away from Union Gospel Mission for a quarter of a year, Jimmy Roughton returned to preach at UGM on the cold night of December 13 -- despite suffering [a little? a lot? dunno.] from a fall from a ladder that likely immediately preceded a significant injury (a wrist that was broken).


It was good to see his group from Capital Free Will Baptist Church up on the pulpit, with Roughton rough-and-ready to seduce and inspire the happily-captivate crowd at UGM.


Roughton told us in his opening words that he was now in his 27th year coming to the mission.

I recall the first preaching I had heard from Roughton on June 13, 2009. At that time and up to the current time, Roughton is the only preacher I had ever heard evoke Pascal's Wager -- which is something he would do, occasionally thereafter at the mission. He would evoke Pascal's wager, yet again, last night [12/13/17].


Pascal's wager

Last night, Jimmy evoked Pascal's Wager. He did so near the end of his talk, citing …