Contact and Tips
Yahoo Upcoming KC Events- Sep 3, 2010: Sea Lion Show at Kansas City Zoo
- Sep 3, 2010: Tropics Exhibit at Kansas City Zoo
- Sep 3, 2010: Polar Bear Passage at Kansas City Zoo
- Sep 3, 2010: F**K, Yeah It's Friday at Riot Room (Formerly the Hurricane)
- Sep 26, 2010: Arizona Cardinals at San Diego Chargers at Arrowhead Stadium
- Sep 14, 2010: Monday Night Swing Dancing at The Phoenix Piano Bar
- Sep 17, 2010: Open Jam With Everette Devan at The Phoenix Piano Bar
- Sep 27, 2010: Lonnie McFadden at The Phoenix Piano Bar
- Sep 28, 2010: Warner Project at The Phoenix Piano Bar
- Sep 21, 2010: Sofy Encanto and the Elastic Bond at The Phoenix Piano Bar
Mar
30
Street Performers – I’m not dead yet!
March 30, 2007 | 55 Comments
The city’s street performer community isn’t conceding defeat yet. If they can get 100 signatures in 10 days they can force the city to delay enforcement of the ordinance for 30 days. This would allow time to gather more signatures and petition for a referendum on the issue.
Go to the KC Street Art blog to find out where you can sign the petition this weekend.
Categories: Arts/Entertainment, Politics
Follow BlogKC on Twitter
[...] post by William Rockhill Nelson and software by Elliott [...]
I’m not quite sure why the council decided to restrict street performers, but the final outcome actually seems reasonable. You can still perform and take tips. You just can’t block business entrances and you can only collect tips by having a hat or case open for people to leave them in. From what I’ve seen, that’s almost universally what street performers do to collect tips now.
If I’m wrong here somehow, let me know. But this sounds like a pretty fair deal to make sure merchants at the Plaza and elsewhere have some protection, but that street performers are still free to perform. I’m all for the arts and free speech, but you might want to be happy that you don’t have to shell out the cash for a city business license or some other permit.
We do want to be reasonable, however the ordinance actually eliminates nearly all areas. We suggested 15 feet from any doorway which still allowed us plenty of places to perform. When Mr. Fairfield added the 5 feet from the street and 20 feet from doorways he effectively said “no performing”. We don’t want to stand in the middle of the sidewalk,and if we do stand there, we will be asked to move by the police. Many sidewalks are only 7 feet wide (I measured) so those are off limits. In Westport most of the businesses are not 40 feet apart, which makes it impossible to be 20 feet from a doorway. We want compromise, not elimination.
I should also add that most of our membership is not against permits. That’s the way it’s done in many other cities.
Kiki if you would actually read the ordinance you would find that and go look at Westport you’ll see that in effect 90% of the neighborhood is off limits.
20 feet sounds reasonable until you you go measure the distance between businesses in Westport. How can a performer stay 20 feet from the door when most doors are only 10 or 15 feet apart???
Evervyone sign-up and Fairfield and others will be off the city council in 30 day’s. Just what has John done in his 4 year term anyway?
Larry,
John has also pushed through a Super TIF to help save the blighted area of BriarCliff — don’t belittle his accomplishments…ha!
I’d like to see somebody with balls who can propose a law that will keep real estates developers 200 feet from any city council or planning meeting that is taking place. The real welfare bums in this city are the developers who are living high off of TIF and other taxpayer money.
This law that criminalizes panhandling is just bush league. The homeless and poor should have access to the sidewalks and streets. These are public spaces. It’s just sucks that Kansas City has to go 18th century on the poor.
Why should the homeless have access to sidewalks and streets? It’s not like they pay their share to build or maintain them.
Also, we make laws to facilitate commerce. People who don’t contribute, and on top of that inhibit others from contributing to the tax base are a drain on everyone and everything. I’m in favor of anything that curtails this activity that has a negative effect on everyone except themselves. People on public assistance typically become rude and self-centered. Sorry, but it’s the truth…
Who would sign this petition, these people are annoying as hell!
Love the attitude, Mr. Nelson. Your arrogance is so endearing. What would probably be best — and maybe that does mean this ordinance needs to be stopped — would be for the council and performers to walk the area and possibly designate specific approved performance areas.
While Mr. Nelson (aka Mr. Awfully Full of Himself) so arrogantly asserts that 90% of Westport would be off limits, performers probably don’t need 90% of Westport at all anyway. There should be a balance possible here.
It is too bad that Fairfield’s trying to ram this thing through, but it’s also too bad that there are a lot of panhandlers hassling people just trying to go about the business of shopping and eating out. Everyone should have access to any public area, but that doesn’t mean they should be able to harrass shoppers and diners at the expense of business owners. By abusing these public spaces, they are affecting the rights of others to freely use them.
So what’s so hard just give the performers markded off spots to play and give a time limit so others can play. Same way for panhandlers give a spot[ or spots],with a time limit and everyones happy.
If most people walked the Westport/Plaza half as much as I do, I think they would be astonished at how widespread panhanling is. Totally out of control. The funniest thing I’ve seen was when two panhandlers, one on crutches, got into a fight. The other guy grabbed the crutches and threw them…obviously, they were props because the “invalid” RAN over and picked up his crutches!
I think a lot of you are WAY over-exaggerating the problem. There are already laws on the books that prevent people from “aggressive” panhandling. It is ok by law now to sit and hold a sign. Honestly, I figure that they have as much right to sit there and hold a sign as I do to walk by on the sidewalk and talk to my friends. There’s a whole first amendment thing going on there. As long as they’re not aggressively annoying me, they have as much right to be there as I do. There’s a whole First Amendment thing going on here.
Meanwhile, this city NEEDS street performers. I LOVE going to places like New Orleans, New York, San Francisco, etc where real street performers create street life. as a city we NEED more of that. Just this morning, there were some street performers at the farmer’s market drawing crowds and entertaining people. People were amused and having fun.
The people who are a problem now are the aggressive panhandlers – THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BREAKING OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.
We don’t need new laws here folks, we just need the current one to be obeyed and enforced.
I am the one did the measurements and figured out that 90% of Westport is off limits. I spent a long time out there measuring sidewalks and I found very few places where any performers could work. The jugglers and groups of singers will have even fewer places than I do as a balloon artist. Why cram the performers into 1 or two small areas when we work better and affect pedestrian traffic less when we are spread out? It’s a self regulating thing. Musicians don’t like to set up where their music and someone else’s music clash. I don’t set up near a living statue or juggler because it works out better for all of us when we are spread out.
This law does NOT help with aggressive panhandling as a whole. In fact it will aggravate the situation by instigating territory wars among the more aggressive panhandlers. The people who break the rules now will break the rules with this current ordinance. Cheeseburger Jerry isn’t going to go away. He’s going to be there and when he is arrested he will sue the city again, and probably win.
If the current laws were enforced there would be no issue. I don’t think the numbers would prove that there is a high percentage of crime caused by the beggars now, homeless or otherwise. I asked for the statistics,but Mr. Fairfield declined the opportunity to provide them. Probably because they don’t exist. Most of the crime in this city is caused by home owning, non panhandling people.
The panhandlers may not pay a share to build and maintain sidewalks, but the performers do. Why should they not be able to use them?
And who would sign our petition? People who
1. enjoy the vitality street art adds to an urban setting.
2. people who don’t like to see city hall ram new laws through just because they can.
3. people who resent that a new law was written by lawyers for the Plaza and in the interest of Highwoods properties, not the city.
4. people who care about the first amendment and the continual erosion of our rights.
Hey Stacey, What precipitated the push for a new ordinance? Don’t tell me Fairfield was just flexing his ‘I want to do it because I can’ muscle.
The lawyer from the Plaza who drew up this ordinance said they have been working on it for 18 months. As far as I can tell the push came from Highwoods properties. Out of the thousands who visit the Plaza every month they claim to get 4-5 complaints a month about panhandlers. Based on the numbers they provided something like 0.00012% of the visitors to the Plaza have enough of a problem to complain. Why Westport was thrown in I don’t know. Drunks are more of a problem there than anything. The owners of several clubs didn’t even know they were being protected from street performers. Downtown is too dead for most performers to bother with and Zona Rosa is too far away for most of us. The 18th and Vine district was thrown in last minute so that McFadden-Weaver could have the appearance of having done something for her district before leaving office.
I get more than 4-5 complaints a month about real estate lawyers!
It’s typical that this legislation was drafted totally out of public view, with zero public input, to benefit private, well-connected interests.
The anti-democratic character of our city council and bureaucracy is the irritant that created such enthusiasm for Funkhouser. Stacey is obviously the expert on this issue and she should be the lead adviser that Funk takes into the meeting room.
And the real estate attorneys should be kept at least 20 feet away from that room. Give them a balloon animal for their kids and send them home.
Only a small fraction of those who are annoyed complain. The rest just wonder why panhandling is allowed in places like the Plaza. Anyone who’s had to deal with it knows it has to have a huge negative effect on business.
I have to agree with Brent. Panhandlers can be a problem, although all you have to do is say no; but I see nothing wrong with street performers. They add ambience to the City. The people who are opposed apparently don’t have a clue as to what happens, not only in the rest of the country, but in the rest of the world. KC will never be a great city as long as people want to maintain their humdrum midwestern don’t bother me lifestyle.
Only a small fraction who are annoyed more complain. It’s an even smaller number of happy people who compliment. Given the 5 million or so visitors (based on tourist numbers) to the plaza every year 60 complaints a year, even if you times it by 10 and say 600, is a very small number.
I don’t think there’s anyone who’s NOT annoyed by it. People go to the Plaza to shop, eat and walk around, they don’t go there to be harrassed by bums. Do you think there’s anyone who actually “likes” it?
So Tim, out of curiosity, why do you feel like your right to not see them trumps their right to sit there with a sign? Seems a bit egotistical.
Because I pay to help maintain the very sidewalks they’re taking up space on, that’s why. And it’s called a sidewalk for a reason; it’s there for walking, not sitting or loitering. The bums in this town seriously need to do something constructive with their lives.
I guess I look at it that they’re rights are protected under the same Constitution as mine are. There are a lot of folks out there that pay a LOT more in taxes than I do, but if I ever get forced off the sidewalk because I have to let Carl Peterson, George Brett, Don Hall or the like pass without my being in their way, it’ll be a sad day in this country.
Why should the homeless have access to the streets and sidewalks? Because they live here! They have just as much right to use the sidewalks as any other person in Kansas City. Sidewalks are provided by the community for community members. The homeless and street performers are our neighbors.
It’s even more important that homeless be visible on our streets and sidewalks, to remind privileged Kansas Citians that they have an obligation to solve this social problem. Want to solve the homeless problem? Build more affordable housing around town.
I just can’t believe this suburban whining about “aggressive panhandling.” I lived in Washington, DC for 9 years and encountered a wide variety of homeless, panhandlers and street performers. I rarely ran into somebody who could be considered to be an “aggressive panhandler.” You would think from the whining about this so-called problem in Kansas City that people think that ANY kind of panhandling is aggressive.
The anti-panhandling ordinance is just an effort by business owners in upscale areas to remove social problems from the sight of their fragile JOCO customers. If this anti-homeless program continues, some of us will do some activism to annoy anti-homeless activists.
Anybody who knows homeless people and who has dealt with panhandlers on the streets should know that there are several options when you are asked for money or assistance. You can give somebody money. You can tell them that you can’t help. Or you can talk to the person, wish them a nice day, chat with them and otherwise treat them as a neighbor and human being.
People who shop and visit the Plaza have no right to a zone that is free of the homeless and street performers. They are responsible for the homeless problem and they have no right to complain if they aren’t doing anything to solve the problem.
The privileged people who shop at the Plaza are the people who are responsible for capitalism, the system that creates the poor and homeless. I have no sympathy for their annoyance with the homeless.
I’d like to introduce everyone to the Project for Public Spaces web site, where the Country Club Plaza is included as one of the 60 “Great Public Spaces” in the world. Under the topic of “Sociability”, it says: “People, from homeless, art punks to Armani and Saks customers, to the city’s “elite”, interact here.”
http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=370&type_id=0
Note that it says the Plaza is threatened by development pressure. Hell, it’s half gone already. The very same real estate interests that are behind the eviction of homeless people and street performers are the true threat to this Great Public Space — not the people who contribute to its sociabiltiy!!
I am not from Johnson County, in fact, it nauseates me. But I also have no use or sympathy for the Plaza freeloaders, or for freeloaders anywhere. I just marvel at the fact that you glorify/romanticize this bullshit. They’re all just self-centered assholes who could care less about the greater good, with no regard for the damage they do to legitimate business. They have no conciousness of their negative impact on legitimate business or the public. If you want to defend such BS, knock yourself out.
AND, if you give to them, you are perpetuating the problem, not helping to solve it. You’re being an enabler.
Wait a minute, Munson. I shop at the Plaza, so how exactly am I “responsible for the homeless problem”? I didn’t give them mental illness, get them addicted to drugs/alcohol, or vote for the Republican idiots who turned many of them out of mental facilities.
But I’m also not one of the homeless who chooses to live on the streets to beg for money to buy booze or dope instead of putting up with the rules of a shelter. And instead of trying to actuall put together some semblance of a decent life. If that’s the choice they want to make, it’s their choice. But that doesn’t mean they should be immune from rules and regulations like the rest of us.
If you want to argue that our society needs to do a better job of providing options for the homeless, I couldn’t agree more. But does that mean that the homeless aren’t responsible at all for their situations? Sorry. Not buying it.
And while you’re undeniably correct that everyone has a right to “use” the sidewalks and streets, they do not have a right to obstruct or make it difficult for others to do so. Further if the presence of performers or panhandlers puts a burden on businesses and their customers then guess what, government SHOULD side with the businesses and shoppers.
I would think the legitimate street performers would actually want to work with the city to try to find a workable solution here. Afterall, the bad behavior will and does deter customers and it ultimately will cost these performers money. Less foot traffic equals less tips. Plain and simple.
Kiki,
The legitimate street performers did try to work with the government. They chose to eliminate us anyway. 15 feet is not an unreasonable compromise. The current law gives 15 feet as the distance solicitors are required to be from ATMs and banks. If it was reasonable when they wrote that it’s reasonable now.
The new ordinance will actually block the sidewalks, not free them up. By forcing people to stand in the middle of the sidewalk, instead of on the edge, pedestrian traffic will be hindered.
The KC Street Artists Association has two main requests for revision. 15 feet instead of 20 and lose the 5 foot rule. We don’t want to stand in the middle of the sidewalk. It does not benefit us or the public to be in the way.
Street performing (and panhandling) are self regulating activities. If people don’t like what we do they don’t give us money and we don’t return to that area.
If you don’t like the panhandlers, tell them no. Tell them to get help from a shelter. Tell them to get a job. If people were not giving them money, they would not be there.
Stacey, you make a good case, and I applaud you for what you’re doing. I do hope that this measure as it stands gets changed, and I do hope that you remain open to working with the city to find common ground. But again, I also think that street performers like you might have more success getting the city’s ear if you joined them in working to crack down on panhandling. Tell them you want to put a stop to it too because it hurts your business.
Panhandling serves no purpose but to support the habits of alcohol and drug addicts. No one should give them ANY money. If you want to help the homeless, then find a good non-profit (many exist) and give your money or your time to them. By giving money to panhandlers, you’re not buying them food. You’re buying them booze and dope. At a minimum, buy them a sandwich instead of giving them cash.
Tim,
Panhandlers pay their share of the sidewalks just like you do. What do you think they do with the money? They pay sales tax.
Furthermore, paying taxes for sidewalks is not a commodity like buying milk. You pay for a public good, regardless if the person using it is paying taxes on it or not.
Under your libertarian-oid logic, someone from out of town who doesn’t buy anything in the Plaza should be prohibited from walking its sidewalks. There would have to be checkpoints at the Plaza where only those who have pre-purchased Plaza goods or show receipts of past Plaza purchases could enter. And then, if you walk more distances than your purchase price in cement and upkeep, you’ll have to be kicked out unless you pay up some more.
I also point out that on top of the fact that businesses that inserted this legislation into the sphincter of our eager and obsequious city council, no one has demonstrated the existence of an empirical study that shows how much money is lost by the status quo to business, nor what the cost to the city and the…gasp!…taxpayers…would be to enforce it.
Cops have nothing else to do, I guess. And the jail costs and court costs for prosecuting panhandling, and the constitutional challenge are, I guess, small prices to pay.
Panhandling is no doubt a national if not local menace to health and safety, like local red light running or drunk driving, poverty, drug economy or the rampant domestic sexual abuse of children. No, let’s stop panhandling now. It’s the best use of our city council’s time. Really.
Mit-
Wow, I can tell you had your thesaurus close by when you wrote that. But obviously no visitors to our city go to the Plaza with an empty wallet (although most leave there with one). Why do you think the McDonald’s felt they needed to put up the large sign warning people not to be taken in by beggars? I really think all Plaza businesses (in fact, every business in town) should follow suit. Let the bums know they are not welcome here.
Oh, and FYI, I have no problem with street performers. They stay busy so they’re not bothering anyone. Actually, I frequently tip them.
Tim, a thesaurus? Your answer, silly as it is, means that if you really do imagine that I or anyone else would would use the words I did needed to use a thesaurus, then your English teachers let you down…somewhere around the 8th or 9th grade.
You likely missed your English classes then, skipping school, going door to door to raise money for McDonald’s, given the millions of dollars in revenue they were losing due to the panhandlers crisis. Destitute as the McDondald’s corporation was at that time, and your efforts non-withstanding, they fortunately turned their losses around by getting cities across the nation to enact panhandling ordinances, in addition to their great marketing effort of putting up signs to warn people about the availability of local charities, plasma centers and flophouses.
No matter what you say, you know the bums are a drain on business, and society. They are responsible for themselves, it’s not up to me or anyone else to give them a free ride. If they don’t want to work, they deserve to starve. Yet I notice most of them look pretty well fed. When they approach me, I actually tell them that I believe people should have jobs and contribute to society. And I have occasionally told them that if it were up to me, what they’re doing would be illegal. I’m assuming most of us here work and take responsibility for our lives without constantly imposing on other people who just want to be left alone by the vermin.
Anybody who is shopping or eating on the Plaza has enough income to give a few dollars to any panhandlers who ask for cash. What they do with it is none of your business, just as it isn’t my business knowing what you do with government assistance of any kind. Don’t buy into this halfwit nonsense that every panhandler is going to use to money on alcohol and drugs.
“Wait a minute, Munson. I shop at the Plaza, so how exactly am I “responsible for the homeless problem”? I didn’t give them mental illness, get them addicted to drugs/alcohol, or vote for the Republican idiots who turned many of them out of mental facilities.”
We are all responsible for the homeless problem because we live in a capitalist society that gives us incredible wealth and privileges. We can collectively afford to solve the homeless problem. A good start would be to build more affordable housing around town. Keep in mind that you never see most of the homeless, because most of the homeless never engage in panhandling.
It’s also a fallacy that most of the homeless have mental health problems. The vast majority of the homeless are homeless because of their economic situation. There are homeless who have mental health problems. Yes, the Republicans are responsible for cutting back services to the homeless in the 1970s, after the big wave of deinstitionalization of mental hospitals. The Republicans are responsible for creating the homeless crisis in the 1980s, in fact, Ronald Reagan is directly responsible for the increase in homelessness. But Democrats are also responsible for gutting social programs and for supporting the capitalists who maintain a system of inequality that underlies the root of the homeless problem.
“But I’m also not one of the homeless who chooses to live on the streets to beg for money to buy booze or dope instead of putting up with the rules of a shelter. And instead of trying to actuall put together some semblance of a decent life. If that’s the choice they want to make, it’s their choice. But that doesn’t mean they should be immune from rules and regulations like the rest of us.”
I’m an anarchist, so I really don’t give a damn about laws, rules and regulations. But I’ll point out that the homeless shouldn’t be subject to an additional set of rules and laws just because of their situation.
I would hope that the good people of Kansas City are more interested in creating quality affordable housing for the homeless, instead of more shelters. The shelter system in this city is inadequate. Homeless folks complain all of the time about the crap they put up with at City Union Mission, including the religious nonsense. There is simply a lack of social services, housing, and resources for the poor in this city. The solution to panhandling is to fix the problem, not whine about “aggressive” panhandlers.
“If you want to argue that our society needs to do a better job of providing options for the homeless, I couldn’t agree more. But does that mean that the homeless aren’t responsible at all for their situations? Sorry. Not buying it.”
They are somewhat responsible for their situation, but then their economic situation is so bad that they really have little choice. Have you ever been evicted from you home? I have. It sucks. It sucks when you are busting your ass, trying to find a job, and people blame you for your situation. Hey, if nobody is going to hire me, it’s not like I cna point a gun at their head and say “Hire me, I need to pay the rent.”
“And while you’re undeniably correct that everyone has a right to “use” the sidewalks and streets, they do not have a right to obstruct or make it difficult for others to do so. Further if the presence of performers or panhandlers puts a burden on businesses and their customers then guess what, government SHOULD side with the businesses and shoppers.”
Panhandlers have just as much right to obstruct the sidewalk as that gaggle of giggling girls from Johnson County. You can always WALK AROUND an obstruction on a sidewalk. I have no sympathy for businesses, because they get lots of benefits from the taxpayers and the government. If they don’t like panhandlers on their sidewalks, they can always open up in Olathe or Overland Park where there aren’t any sidewalks.
“I would think the legitimate street performers would actually want to work with the city to try to find a workable solution here. Afterall, the bad behavior will and does deter customers and it ultimately will cost these performers money. Less foot traffic equals less tips. Plain and simple.”
I can’t believe that customers of these businesses are so fragile and paranoid tht they can’t handle seeing and experiencing our urban neighbors.
What They Didn’t Teach Us in Library School
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/04/356960.shtml
The cost of this mad system is staggering. Cities that have tracked chronically homeless people for the police, jail, clinic, paramedic, emergency room, and other hospital services they require, estimate that a typical transient can cost taxpayers between $20,000 and $150,000 a year. You could not design a more expensive, wasteful, or ineffective way to provide healthcare to individuals who live on the street than by having librarians like me dispense it through paramedics and emergency rooms. For one thing, fragmented, episodic care consistently fails, no matter how many times delivered. It is not only immoral to ignore people who are suffering illness in our midst, it’s downright stupid public policy. We do not spend too little on the problems of the mentally disabled homeless, as is often assumed, instead we spend extravagantly but foolishly.
Yeah, but a lot of the panhandlers are far from homeless, like Jerry “downpayment on a cheeseburger” Mazer. I’ve seen enough of the prop crutches and wheelchairs too. And heard enough of the made-up sob stories. If you want to help the truly homeless, give to an organization, not to people on the street who merely dress the part.
Note to Chuck Munson – How do you expect anybody to take you seriously? Your views are extreme – unless you’re insane, do you really expect the views of an anarchist to be relevant to any possible policy outcome? No.
I’ve been followed just about every morning in and out of the Starbucks in Westport by somebody asking for money. Drive up 43rd by the Levy and Berbiglia and see the group of beggars sitting on the North side of Berbiglia, holding signs. You can watch them go into the Berbiglia and buy booze after they get a “donation”.
Let’s be honest here, perhaps not a majority of homeless are alcolholics/addicts, but a majority of the panhandlers especially in the Plaza/Westport use panhandling as a substitutre for work and/or a way to purchase booze/drugs. The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming.
So isn’t a reasonable rule to employ here is the concept – and this needs some work – is that we should not allow people to (1) verbally ask for money; and (2) follow people around soliciting donations of any kind verbally or with a sign. The exception to this is with a license granted by the city.
This allows for some panhandling (but unintrusive), and allows for street performers. Street perfomers greatly enhance urban life….
The area by Berbiglia is outside of the protected zone, so the panhandlers will still be there. This ordinance does not protect the entire city, just a few key areas. I think enforcement of the current laws would be a better option.
That’s right, Stacey – I just read the ordinance. Sorry I’m a little late to the party. It does sound like a bad deal for street performers, I’m surprised this passed.
How’s the petition going? I’ll sign if I know where one is.
The petition is going well. Our goal is to have no less than 200, just to ensure that we get 100 registered voters. I’ve posted a list of places people will be during the next few days over at http://www.kcstreetart.com
Also I will be at City Hall on Wed. for the zoning committee meeting. If you don’t find someone on the list who’s at a place you can get to easily, just email me and I’ll find someone who has a copy and who can meet you. stacey(at)kcstreetart.com
Thanks!
Munson, how can you both claim to be an anarchist and decry the lack of government programs? Are you a card-carrying anarchist too?
And how is it that just because I can afford to buy a book or cup of coffee or a shirt at the Plaza that I’m somehow Mr. Moneybags and responsible for all the world’s problems? Sorry, but I vote, I pay my taxes, I work hard, I give to charities that directly help the poor, and I am raising my kids to be socially responsible. But I’m also raising them to be responsible for themselves.
And if you honestly believe that the “economic situation” of the homeless is why they are on the streets begging, then you really don’t know much about the situation. Sorry, but that’s such a fallacy it’s hardly worth addressing.
There are a multitude of social service programs that exist to help these people find shelter, clothes, food, etc. These programs are also in place to help them rebuild their lives and get back on track. They’re not on the street because no one is there to help. They’re on the street because they’ve chosen to reject the help that is available.
No one should ever give these people money. Buy them food if you feel guilty, but don’t give them cash. You’re enabling their addictions and you’re doing nothing but helping to keep them on the streets.
Kiki-
You’re right. And a lot of them aren’t even homeless, so giving to them instead of a charity means you might actually be depriving the homeless of something they actually need. And the ones who are homeless are rejecting the steps necessary for turning their lives around.
Thanks Tim. I want to make clear that I’m not suggesting people be dispassionate or rude or anythign else. But if you do anything but “walk on by,” you’re not helping at all.
The only thing anyone should ever give to a panhandler is healthy, nutritious food. Otherwise, save up the spare change you would hand out and write a check to the social service agency of your choice.
An olde joke:
A man was walking through Oxford when one of the old Irish beggers asked him “Could you spare some change for a bit of food, sir?”
The man snapped back “You’ll just spend it on drink!”
The begger replied “Oh, no sir.” And patting his pocket, “I’ve got me drinking money right here”.
On the referendum petition. We’ve been checking and finally got the answer. While the city code/charter says we have 10 days to file the intent, we really only have until 5pm on the 8th day. The 10th day is a Sunday, it’s always a Sunday and they aren’t open.
While we will be fine, I find it offensive that they could allow 10 days to organize, but fail to mention that they really mean 8 days.
Good one, Craig.
And Stacey, welcome to the wonderful world of red tape. You didn’t expect City Hall to make it easier for citizens to fight City Hall, now did you?
kiki,
Nope, never expected it to be easy. I’m just glad that my husband was persistent and called until he got an official answer. With government you should never take anything, no matter how clearly spelled out for granted.
Stacey, it’s a shame that you’re right, but you are. Let’s hope that the new mayor will make it a priority to cut down on the number of hoops people have to jump through.
It should be a lot easier for people to petition the government, to get licenses, and on and on.
I’m every bit the anarchist and I’m quite sane. In fact, my views are fairly typical for the people I know. Just because some of you are exposed to some opinions that aren’t shoved down your throat by the local TV news doesn’t make the person articulating those comments “insane.” I’ve found that people who dismiss the ideas of others as “insane” are simply incapable of discussing alternative ideas. For some, this is prejudice against alternate ideas. For others, this is just ignorance of other kinds of thinking.
There are plenty of accaptable ways to deal with panhandlers without getting the government involved.