Northampton Panhandling in the Spotlight
On Monday, November 24, 2008, the civic group Poverty is Not a Crime (PINAC) held a mock Ordinance enforcement demonstration and parade in downtown Northampton, MA, as a part of their effort to bring down a proposed city ordinance that would greatly restrict where panhandlers could ply their trade. (See restriction details in this story.)
Dozens of people gathered at the Northampton City Hall, where protest signs were handed out to volunteers as the sun set low on the horizon. From there, demonstrators scattered throughout the nearby downtown streets, taking up positions at locations they said would be out-of-bounds for any panhandlers under the new ordinance currently under review in the City Council. The demonstrators later marched around the downtown streets.
Demonstration organizer Caty Simon said the group had already collected more than 500 signatures on a petition supporting their cause. “It might be six or seven hundred by now,” she said. Simon also said about twenty-five downtown business owners were among the petition signers.
PINAC organizer Caty Simon talks with CBS-3 newsguy Matt Campbell prior to the demonstration.
The revitalization downtown Northampton has been a hot-button issue since business owner Dan Yacuzzo began proposing a Northampton Business Improvement District two years ago. Several downtown businesses have expressed opposition to a BID in Northampton, with business owner Eric G. Suher saying in this Republican article earlier this year that such a governing committee is not necessary.
But the issue of panhandling has recently taken center stage in light of the proposed city ordinance. Supporters of panhandlers say it’s a matter of free speech rights. 
But area business owners said in this Republican article that panhandling is an increasing problem. And Northampton Police Chief Russell Sienkiewicz is quoted in the same article as saying many of the panhandlers are “fakes” – people soliciting money for drugs and alcohol rather than food and shelter.
When asked about the probable number of panhandlers who were not homeless – such as, say, college students or others looking for extra cash, Simon said she didn’t think too many fell into that category. “I don’t think there’s a whole lot of fraudulent panhandling,” she said.
The plight of homeless veterans was also on Simon’s mind. She said veterans could not count on the Department of Veterans Affairs. “The VA’s board has changed five times due to corruption,” she said.
According to a press handout PINAC distributed at City Hall, the group works in collaboration with the Freedom Center, the Springfield civic group, Arise for Social Justice, and Social Change in Mind.
According to this Republican story, the proposed ordinance was discussed during a scheduled Public Safety Committee meeting, with both sides airing their views. The ordinance was then tabled until December 8th, 2008, where it will be brought up at a meeting of the Committee on Economic Development, Housing and Land Use. The Republican reported that the ordinance issue could carry on through to February, 2009.
Below are some photos of the demonstration, followed by a 5-minute video. The video is highlighted about mid-way through by a passerby debating “free speech” rights with two demonstrators.
Demonstrators used duct tape to map out the boundaries that panhandlers would have to observe under the proposed Ordinance.
How could I not take this picture?
This police cruiser put on his lights to make sure the demonstrators got safely across the busy street.
Back at City Hall in time for the Public Safety Committee meeting.
A homeless man reads literature that was passed out to passers-by.
After the parade through downtown, volunteers got a free meal.
Check out the bag of weed, man.
I’m assuming it was under an ounce.
PDF 5 Responses for “Northampton Panhandling in the Spotlight”
Leave a Reply
ADVERTISE AT THE SI
 |
 |
Wow, this is great. Thanks! In terms of fraudulence, I’d also like to include the fact that many queer and trans youth run away here to this GLBT mecca when thrown out by their homo/transphobic parents, as well as youth that run away from abusive households. Often, they’re percieved as “fraudulent” b/c of their middle class dress and manner, but the fact that their homelessness is caused by abuse, homophobia and transphobia rather than class and poverty doesn’t make it any less real. Plus, how would fraudulence be proved? Chief S hates it when I say this, but would vets be subject to search and seizure to see if they’re truly vets or if they’re being taken care of? Plus, if you look at the papers these days, it’s getting harder and harder for PTSD disabled vets to get monetary aid. The military will claim they had pre-existing psych problems or anything they can do to get them out of forking over the $, b/c as the Advocate reported at the beginning of the Iraq war, there are only 1/4 the VA resources required to treat all the PTSD coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I just spoke to Councilor Ray La Barge, who at his recent visit to the VA homeless shelter, found that the floor boards were rotting and the shower was filthy, among many other inadequacies. In a former board administration, when the board was embezzling (yet again), vets with dirty urines would be kicked out of the shelters WHILE ONE OF THE PROMINENT BOARD MEMBERS WAS A COMPULSIVE COKEHEAD. Even before Iraq and Afghanistan, my boyfriend, a heavy combat 3 tour Vietnam vet (w/ the papers to prove it) said it was a huge battle to get his PTSD pension, and he had to help other vets do so as well, and they were often refused at first.
The idea that most panhandlers aren’t homeless is insulting and specious in general. Most people still need desperation to break the taboo against the shame of begging. Everyone, even proponents of the ordinance, have said that these “fraudulent panhandlers” are few and far between. 4 or 5 people at most…And why should all needy panhandlers be punished by being onerously restricted in terms of space b/c of a few bad apples–esp. when harassment and fraud are already on the books, and can be turned into civil infractions if Chief S doesn’t want them to be criminal, as Bill Newman pointed out. In terms of the burden of proof to prove fraudulent panhandling, why not use extralegal community methods to curb it? Other panhandlers and business owners and citizens could join together and put up posters describing known frauds around Main St–I guarantee they’d stop getting handouts quick and leave town. Same thing w/business owner’s problems w/panhandlers in general–why jump to control heavy legal solutions? What about community solutions, like a professionally mediated round table between business owners and panhandlers about guidelines, compromises for living together and sharing space? The business owners will probably protest that the panhandlers are irrational and impossible to talk to, but I doubt it’s been tried very often, and besides, what they’re talking about is not some inherent deficiency in the panhandlers but the fact that as lower class people, they don’t have access to formal negotiation skills. A professional mediator could mitigate that problem and give them access to those skills.
Re: the “free speech” heckler–we’ve always used a two-prong human rights/classism and free speech approach, and Attorney Bill Newman of the ACLU certainly seems to think a free speech argument is relevant, and he should know. Also, free speech does not apply to a conversation in which the other person doesn’t want to engage with you any further b/c you’re loud and rude–that’s just like what should happen after you say “no” to a panhandler who asks for change–the guy should’ve walked away politely. Hmmm, maybe we should make an ordinance about aggressive polemic
Oh, and about the signatures on the petition–they’re so far flung, we know we have 500 in a thousand different places but could only get 270 together for the hearing. We’re disorganized and suck, sometimes
But more important than signing a petition is calling/e-mailing your city councilor, which many more people have done instead. On facebook, we have 201 members of the org, and those people aren’t even the same people who signed the petition–don’t be fooled by our small numbers last night, on a cold day on the week of Thanksgiving Break. At all our previous protests, we’ve had 50-70 people–as the Collegian reports, for example, 50 at the protest before the one before this one, and then there were 60-70 @ the next one…
Call e-mail your councilor if you live in Hamp, and urge them to vote against the ordinance:
Look at this page on my website for contact info and ward maps:
http://marginalutility.livejournal.com/489074.html?mode=reply
Don’t forget to call/e-mail the two at large city councilors as well, City Council President James Dostal and Councilor Michael Bardsley.
What a great job covering the event. Hopefully this will bring enough publicity to shame our disgrace of a mayor who thinks the solution to homlessness is ensuring those in need get harassed, get no assistance, and get swept under the rug where no one can help them.
Higgins is the poster child for power gone amok.
Whenever a poltician looks to solve a problem by restricting the freedom of each and every person in their city, you know they are totally incompetent and need to be removed from office forever.
Vote for anyone but the current fascist in chief, and strike a blow for freedom!
Thanks for your fair coverage of this event!
Mainstream corporate media generally reported that there was “controversy” on the event, but they did NOT report on the demonstrations of about 78 people before the hearing, they did NOT report on the petition against the ordinance. Although this is no suprise, thank you for your dedication to truth in journalism.
David Beyer
Poverty Is Not a Crime member