City Council may ban belligerent begging

“Tough Times Anything Helps God Bless” said the cardboard sign held by a woman seen panhandling this week just east of the Walmart on S.W. Wanamaker Road.

Panhandlers regularly ask passers-by for cash at a handful of sites along Topeka thoroughfares and parking lots. Others approach strangers seeking handouts.

But soliciting in private lots would be banned — unless the panhandler has the owner’s permission — if the Topeka City Council approves an ordinance it will consider acting on next week.

The proposal sponsored by Councilman Jonathan Schumm is among measures the nine-member council will take up Tuesday evening. The wording of the proposed ban on aggressive panhandling can be found as part of the council agenda on the city’s website at http://cjon.co/1NXqAB9.

Mayor Larry Wolgast won’t have a vote on the measure because he has the authority to veto it, acting city attorney Mary Feighny said.

The panhandling proposal wouldn’t ban begging. Legal attempts to do that have failed, as appellate courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court — have determined the First Amendment protects charitable solicitation on public property, said a document that is part of the agenda packet for Tuesday’s meeting.

Still, that document said, ordinances banning aggressive panhandling have generally been upheld.

The document added that Topekans have complained to the city about panhandlers, raising safety issues and contending they create a negative perception of the city.

“The complaints range from people soliciting funds on the corners of the main thoroughfares of the city as well as people soliciting funds and donations for their organizations in the medians of intersections,” the document said.

The proposal on Tuesday’s agenda is modeled after an ordinance adopted by the city of Kansas City, Kan. It defines panhandling as being any of these acts:

¦ “Begging, soliciting or asking for any item of value, monetary or otherwise.”

¦ “Attempting to sell or obtain compensation for an item or service for or in an amount that is at least twice its value, or an item or service that is already offered or available at no charge to the general public.”

¦ “Attempting to sell or obtain compensation for an item or service under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the payment is in substance a donation.”

The proposal makes an exception allowing its provisions not to apply to anyone using a permit issued by the city or as an exercise of that person’s constitutional right to legally picket, protest or speak.

The proposal would ban panhandling in these places:

¦ On private property without permission from the owner or occupant.

¦ Within 15 feet of an automated teller machine.

¦ From vehicle operators or occupants, by a person who is on the street.

¦ In exchange for cleaning windows of a vehicle that is in traffic on the street.

¦ For protecting, watching, washing, cleaning, repairing or painting a vehicle or bicycle parked on the street.

¦ For directing vehicle operators or occupants on the street to a public parking space, or in exchange for blocking, occupying or reserving a public parking space.

Aside from those prohibitions, the proposal would continue to allow panhandling but ban “aggressive panhandling” in any public place. It identifies a public place as “any street, sidewalk, alley, park, bridge, parking lot or other public property within the city that is open to the general public.”

The proposal would allow panhandling on the sidewalk, at any public transportation stop and on any public transportation vehicle as long as the panhandler doesn’t commit any of five acts deemed as “aggressive panhandling.”

Those are:

¦ “Continuously asking, begging or soliciting any item from a person after the person has made a negative response.”

¦ Touching someone without his or her consent.

¦ Engaging in any conduct with the intention of intimidating another person into giving away money or goods.

¦ “Intentionally blocking, impeding or interfering by any means with the free passage of a person or vehicle.”

¦ Approaching, speaking to or following a person in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to fear he or she would “suffer imminent physical injury” or become the victim of a crime.

Under the proposal, Feighny said, panhandling would be punishable by a fine of up to $499 and/or a jail term of up to 179 days.

Police Chief James Brown said his department would enforce the ordinance just as it does any other ordinance or statute.

Brown said: “Officers will respond to citizen complaints or investigate those suspected violations committed in the officer’s presence. If there is probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the officer can issue a complaint and notice to appear in Municipal Court.”

Police Lt. Colleen Stuart said officers would take into account the entire situation and would be given discretion to resolve it.

She added that if the ordinance is approved, police might initially provide time to educate the public about it.