{"id":1683,"date":"2014-07-29T14:49:50","date_gmt":"2014-07-29T14:49:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/?p=1683"},"modified":"2014-07-29T14:49:50","modified_gmt":"2014-07-29T14:49:50","slug":"sacramento-stronghearts-challenge-panhandling-prohibitions-santa-cruz-aclu-still-silent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/sacramento-stronghearts-challenge-panhandling-prohibitions-santa-cruz-aclu-still-silent\/","title":{"rendered":"Sacramento Stronghearts Challenge Panhandling Prohibitions; Santa Cruz ACLU Still Silent"},"content":{"rendered":"

NOTES BY NORSE:\u00a0 The Sacramento ACLU has moved to challenge its anti-homeless panhandling prohibitions. \u00a0 The legal eagles who put together the Sacramento County panhandling ban included an exemption for charitable groups which clearly discriminates against those begging for their own survival and\/or that of their family and friends.\u00a0 Local Attorney Mark Merin has a history of standing up for homeless people in Sacramento both in court and even personally supporting a homeless encampment on private property (that was ultimately shut down by city bigotry).\u00a0 [See http:\/\/sacramentohomeless.blogspot.com\/2009\/08\/mark-merin-property-leased-for-use-by.html<\/a> ]<\/p>\n

Santa Cruz’s panhandling law has had one successful court challenge: http:\/\/la.indymedia.org\/news\/2006\/05\/158965_comment.php<\/a>.\u00a0 However the law is massively overbroad and discriminates against the homeless [See full law below].\u00a0 MC 9.10 severely restricts panhandling times and places.\u00a0\u00a0 MC 5.43 further restricts “display devices” (such as a donation cup).\u00a0 MC 4.04.010 and MC 4.04.015 add additional penalties for not paying the outrageous fines of hundreds of dollars for each begging incident and deepen the criminalization of those charged (even if not convicted) of the MC 9.10.\u00a0 An intensive campaign against “chronic offenders” has combined police, D.A., probation, and psuedo-social service workers in a\u00a0 massive vendetta against the poor in Santa Cruz in the so-called Downtown Accountability Program.\u00a0 The City has put in large prominent red change-collecting machines around which it is illegal to sit or panhandle within 14′.\u00a0 These provide a cold steely “alternative” to panhandling (i.e. give your money to a machine and let bureaucrats decide who will benefit) are are marketed under the chilling label “Real Change Not Spare Change”.<\/p>\n

The local ACLU has so far declined to make any public statements about this law, overtly abusive though it is to the rights of poor people (and those who want to donate to their survival).<\/p>\n

Homeless activists sue Sacramento County to block panhandling ban<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n

<\/a>By Brad Branan<\/a>
\nbbranan@sacbee.com<\/a><\/p>\n

Published: Thursday, Jul. 17, 2014 – 12:32 pm<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Last Modified: Friday, Jul. 18, 2014 – 7:01 am<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\n

The Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee filed a lawsuit Thursday<\/span><\/span> challenging a new Sacramento County<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> panhandling ordinance as unconstitutional.
\nSupervisors unanimously passed the ordinance in May, which prohibits aggressive panhandling anywhere in the unincorporated county and bans solicitation specifically at street medians, banks, ATMs and gas stations.<\/p>\n

The advocacy group, which publishes a bimonthly newspaper dedicated to homeless issues, is being represented in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> of Northern California<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> and local attorney Mark Merin. ACLU Legal Director Alan Schlosser said the plaintiffs want a hearing within a week for a temporary injunction to suspend the ordinance, which took effect June 13<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Schlosser said the new law violates the U.S. Constitution<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> by allowing charities to collect money in public places but banning panhandlers from doing so.
\nPanhandling restrictions have been approved by local governments across the state, including Citrus Heights,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Elk Grove and Sacramento. But Sacramento County appears to be unique in creating an exemption for a group of people, Schlosser said.<\/p>\n

The exemption and a desire to stop the law from ever being enforced were reasons for the ACLU to challenge the law, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey were certainly not intending to limit aggressive panhandling,\u201d Schlosser said. \u201cThey are trying to push the homeless out of town.\u201d<\/p>\n

County spokeswoman Chris Andis said it\u2019s county policy not to comment about pending litigation.<\/p>\n

However, Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan defended the ordinance.<\/p>\n

\u201cStaff went to great lengths to write a law that recognizes the constitutional right to panhandling, but also restricts its locations where people feel vulnerable,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Earlier this month, Rancho Cordova tentatively approved a similar restriction on \u201caggressive panhandling\u201d that prohibits solicitation in places where people are a \u201ccaptive audience\u201d to pleas for money. The law must be approved a second time next week before becoming law.<\/p>\n

A city staff report said the amendment is legal based on recent court decisions and \u201cthe regulations are content neutral, meaning the regulations do not treat individuals differently depending on their message.\u201d The regulations must also \u201cserve an important government interest.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pamela Poole, executive director of the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee, said she and other homeless members of the committee are worried that the county law will prohibit them from collecting donations in conjunction with the distribution of Homeward, which has a circulation of 8,000 to 11,000. Homeless people get copies of the newspaper free or for a nominal fee and then seek a recommended donation of $1 for each paper, which they keep.<\/p>\n

Billy Murphy, a plaintiff in the case, said he has largely relied on panhandling for income since becoming homeless in October. He said he has stopped panhandling in Citrus Heights<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> after being cited there in March, and he worries that Sacramento County\u2019s ordinance will have the same effect on him.<\/p>\n

Murphy said he generally panhandles on sidewalks and doesn\u2019t solicit people verbally. Instead, he just holds signs, such as \u201cHomeless Will Work Have Bike Will Travel … Please Help.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI just want people to know I need help,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

A county spokesman said last week that the county is spending the first two months educating residents about the law and has not yet issued citations. Under the law, violations would be cited as an infraction, with three infractions in six months resulting in a misdemeanor charge.<\/p>\n

Representatives of the Watt Avenue Merchants Association, the Fulton Avenue Association and the Florin Road Partnership told the board in May that they support the ban. They said panhandling seems to be on the rise in certain parts of the county.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n


\nRead more here: http:\/\/www.sacbee.com\/2014\/07\/17\/6563815\/homeless-activists-sue-sacramento.html#storylink=cpy<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

SANTA CRUZ’S PANHANDLING PROHIBITIONS<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

MORE NOTES BY NORSE:\u00a0 The especially egregious and unconstitutional sections of the ordinance are emboldened<\/b>.\u00a0 However the massive sweep of the law so restricts the place, time, and manner of the laws as to make illegal peaceful non-threatening non-obstructive forms of sparechanging.\u00a0\u00a0 The “forbidden zones”, for instance, created for panhandling both in time and space leave very little opportunity for making donation requests. \u00a0 Asking a friend for\u00a0 money is illegal, for instance (and has reportedly been charged in the past if the person looks homeless enough and the cop wants to drive the person away).\u00a0 People have spent months in jail panhandling.\u00a0 Particularly misleading is the title of the law “Aggressive Solicitation”.\u00a0 Only 3 of the 28 provisions of the law [MC 9.10.040 b, c and d] can be reasonably considered restrictions on “aggressive” panhandling.\u00a0 The rest seek to wash poor people from the sight of tourists and residents.<\/p>\n

Chapter 9.10<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION<\/span><\/h2>\n

Sections:<\/p>\n

9.10.010<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Definitions.<\/p>\n

9.10.020<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Time of solicitation.<\/p>\n

9.10.030<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Place of solicitation.<\/p>\n

9.10.040<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Manner of solicitation.<\/p>\n

9.10.050<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0False or misleading solicitation.<\/p>\n

9.10.060<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Misdemeanor.<\/p>\n

<\/a>9.10.010 DEFINITIONS.\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

For the purposes of this chapter:<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u201cSolicitation\u201d means any verbal request, or any non-verbal request made with a sign<\/b>, by a person seeking an immediate donation of money, food, cigarettes or items of value. Purchase of an item for an amount far exceeding its value, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is in substance a donation, is a donation for purposes of this chapter. A person is not soliciting for purposes of this chapter when he or she passively displays a sign or places a collection container on the sidewalk pursuant to which he or she receives monetary offerings in appreciation for his or her original artwork or for entertainment or a street performance he or she provides. This chapter does not apply to peddling and soliciting activity governed by Chapter 5.40<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u201cPerson\u201d means any individual person, group of persons or organizations.<\/p>\n

(Ord. 2009-05 \u00a7\u00a03, 2009: Ord. 2002-51 \u00a7 1, 2002: Ord. 2002-39 \u00a7 1, 2002: Ord. 2002-32 \u00a7 1, 2002: Ord. 94-10 \u00a7 1 (part), 1994).<\/p>\n

<\/a>9.10.020 TIME OF SOLICITATION.\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

Any person who solicits after sunset or before sunrise is guilty of an infraction.<\/b><\/p>\n

(Ord. 94-10 \u00a7 1 (part), 1994).<\/p>\n

<\/a>9.10.030 PLACE OF SOLICITATION.\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

Any person who solicits in any of the following places, or any person who solicits when the person solicited<\/b> is in any of the following places, is guilty of an infraction:<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0At any bus stop;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In any public transportation vehicle or facility;<\/p>\n

(c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In any vehicle on the street;<\/b><\/p>\n

(d)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0On private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or tenant;<\/b><\/p>\n

(e)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Within fourteen feet of any building other than those buildings referenced in subsection (f). Where any portion of a building is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk;<\/b><\/p>\n

(f)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Within fifty feet of any bank building or other financial institution buildings, including their outdoor automatic teller machines;<\/p>\n

(g)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In the parking lot of any bank, savings and loan, or other financial institution;<\/p>\n

(h)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Within fifty feet of any ATM machine or cash disbursal machine, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines;<\/p>\n

(i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Within fourteen feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk;<\/b><\/p>\n

(j)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Within fourteen feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory\/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, or vending cart;<\/b><\/p>\n

(k)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Within fourteen feet of any street corner or intersection;<\/b><\/p>\n

(l)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Within fourteen feet of any open air dining area or cafe extension; or<\/b><\/p>\n

(m)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Within fourteen feet of any kiosk.<\/b><\/p>\n

(Ord. 2009-05 \u00a7\u00a04, 2009: Ord. 2002-39 \u00a7 2, 2002: Ord. 2002-32 \u00a7 2, 2002: Ord. 94-10 \u00a7 1 (part), 1994).<\/p>\n

<\/a>9.10.040 MANNER OF SOLICITATION.\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

Any person who solicits in any of the following manners is guilty of an infraction:<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0By coming within three feet of the person solicited, until that person has indicated that he or she wishes to make a donation;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0By blocking the path of the person solicited, or other pedestrians, along a sidewalk or street;<\/p>\n

(c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0By following a person who walks away from the solicitor;<\/p>\n

(d)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0By using abusive language as part of the solicitation or following a refusal that is directed at the specific individual or individuals being solicited;<\/p>\n

(e)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0By soliciting in a group of two or more persons;<\/b><\/p>\n

(f)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0While under the influence of alcohol or any illegal narcotic or controlled substance; or<\/p>\n

(g)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0By soliciting while in the immediate possession of a dog, by leash or otherwise.<\/b><\/p>\n

(Ord. 2011-08 \u00a7\u00a09, 2011: Ord. 2006-06 \u00a7 1, 2006: Ord. 94-10 \u00a7 1 (part), 1994).<\/p>\n

<\/a>9.10.050 FALSE OR MISLEADING SOLICITATION.\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Any person who knowingly makes any false or misleading representation in the course of soliciting a donation is guilty of an infraction. False or misleading representations include, but are not limited to, <\/b>the following:<\/p>\n

(1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stating that the donation is needed to meet a specific need, when the solicitor already has sufficient funds to meet that need and does not disclose that fact;<\/p>\n

(2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stating that the donation is needed to meet a need which does not exist;<\/p>\n

(3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stating that the solicitor is from out of town and stranded, when that is not true;<\/p>\n

(4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stating that the solicitor is homeless, when he or she is not;<\/p>\n

(5)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stating that the solicitor is soliciting on behalf of an organization which does not exist or which has not authorized the solicitor to seek donations on its behalf.<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Any person who knowingly solicits a donation stating that the funds are needed for a specific purpose and then spends the funds received for a different purpose is guilty of an infraction.<\/b><\/p>\n

(Ord. 94-10 \u00a7 1 (part), 1994).<\/p>\n

<\/a>9.10.060 MISDEMEANOR.\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

Any person who violates one or more of the sections of this chapter twice within a six-month period is guilty of a misdemeanor.<\/p>\n

(Ord. 94-10 \u00a7 1 (part), 1994).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NOTES BY NORSE:\u00a0 The Sacramento ACLU has moved to challenge its anti-homeless panhandling prohibitions. \u00a0 The legal eagles who put together the Sacramento County panhandling ban included an exemption for charitable groups which clearly discriminates against those begging for their … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[57],"tags":[4,126],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1683"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1683"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1683\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1684,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1683\/revisions\/1684"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1683"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1683"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}