Additional restrictions may be on the way.

New panhandling limits sought by Oklahoma City council members | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/further-panhandling-limits-sought-by-okc-council-members/article/5473282)


The measure would modify the definition of "aggressive" panhandling to include soliciting within 50 feet of a school bus stop or an elementary school's property.
The measure also would expand from 20 feet to 50 feet the panhandling-free zones around outdoor seating at cafes and restaurants, and near ATMs, public restrooms, and transit stops.

I like it.

Additional restrictions may be on the way.

New panhandling limits sought by Oklahoma City council members | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/further-panhandling-limits-sought-by-okc-council-members/article/5473282)

So free speech zones?

OKC council begs the question: Is new panhandling law strict enough? | News OK (http://newsok.com/okc-council-begs-the-question-is-new-panhandling-law-strict-enough/article/5473559)

The current ordinance hasn't made any change IMO at the corner of SE 44 and I-35. I'm by there a couple of times a week and there are always 3-10 panhandlers standing there with signs. Sure, they are not in the median, but they are everywhere else.

The current ordinance hasn't made any change IMO at the corner of SE 44 and I-35. I'm by there a couple of times a week and there are always 3-10 panhandlers standing there with signs. Sure, they are not in the median, but they are everywhere else.

while the law went into effect 1/7, i remember reading an article stating that ocpd would wait at least 30 days to start enforcing it. -M

OKC Council could restrict panhandlers near schools, ATMs

By: Sarah Terry-Cobo The Journal Record January 19, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – School grounds could be the next place in Oklahoma City where panhandling is forbidden. City Council members voted Tuesday for a public hearing on a proposal to amend a 2010 ordinance that defines and restricts aggressive panhandling.

Millwood school district Superintendent Cecilia Robinson Woods said she requested the changes to create a safer atmosphere for her students.

Councilman John Pettis and Councilman Mark Stonecipher proposed the amendments, which would add schools, bus stops, public toilets and land used to provide educational services to elementary school children to locations where people are prohibited from soliciting money. The proposal extends boundaries prohibiting panhandling to 50 feet from 20 feet in front of ATMs, near outdoor seating areas and close to bus stops.

Woods said parents alerted her to a panhandler near the Millwood schools campus in August. By October, there were three panhandlers, she said. Parents can see those solicitors from their vehicles in child pickup line near the campus, which is located on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, near NE 67th Street. She said she didn’t want parents to perceive the school grounds as unsafe.

Woods said she wasn’t aware of anyone aggressively approaching children for money. However, adults reported to her that children darted into traffic to cross the street to avoid passing by a panhandler on the sidewalk near the school, she said.

Woods said she understands panhandlers have a right to make a living and some may have mental health issues. But she said she wanted to ensure children who attend her school have the right to safe passage as they walk to school.

“Panhandlers shouldn’t be near schools, period,” Woods said. “I don’t want to harass them, but we can’t wait for something to happen to someone’s child.”

Oklahoma City Litigation Division Chief Rick Smith said the amendments would protect children from panhandlers. If the changes are approved, those solicitors will still have rights, but must be at least 50 feet from school property, he said.

The proposed changes are unrelated to the recently approved ordinance that restricts panhandling in street medians, Smith said.

The council will hear public comment during its regular council meeting on Jan. 26 and is scheduled to vote on the measure on Feb. 9.

^^^^^
Just so that everyone understands, the aggressive panhandling ordinance has existed for years. This is a refinement.

In this case, "aggressive" might mean something other than what people might think. The term is a bit of a catch-all. The existing aggressive panhandling ordinance entirely bans the activity after dark, near ATMs, near the entrances to businesses, asking again when told no, making physical contact and other activities that might reasonably make a person feel unsafe or interfere with commerce.

I say "reasonably" because if merely SEEING a panhandler makes you feel unsafe, your fear probably says more about you than it does the panhandler.

BTW, in my experience quite a few police officers - usually officers who don't normally work downtown - are actually unaware of the ordinance. I have had to educate a number of them when they've responded to calls. It's a pretty powerful tool when used properly, yet doesn't interfere with someone's basic right to free speech.

I say "reasonably" because if merely SEEING a panhandler makes you feel unsafe, your fear probably says more about you than it does the panhandler.

Well, unless you're a child, then it's reasonable.

Heh.. here's a solution for the really bad medians... I've love to see this put next to the 235 NB 23rd exit median...

12147

^^^ If they put this in the medians I can't make my u-turns!

Sure you can. Run flat tires, hehehehe

Those guys still wander around Midtown after dark approaching groups walking saying they have cancer and anything helps?

Anti-panhandling Ordinance Rebranded After Complaints, Pushback | American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma (http://acluok.org/2016/04/anti-panhandling-ordinance-rebranded-after-complaints-pushback/)

From the article:

"On September 15, 2015, Salyer introduced the ordinance during the Oklahoma City council’s weekly meeting.

That day, Salyer told media representatives that quality of life concerns helped shape the ordinance. She said Oklahoma City residents told her “their quality of life was destroyed” by seeing panhandlers every morning as the residents drove through the intersection of NW 23 and Pennsylvania Avenue."

How terrible, to have to see panhandlers every day while driving by them in your car with the windows rolled up, the A/C and radio on, the horror, the horror...... :)

At 23rd and I-235, it's a problem. They litter, they cross the street (jaywalk) during traffic causing problems. About 6 or 8 months ago, a panhandler pulled a knife on a person who was stopped in the turn lane. It was more of a problem back then than it is now. I don't see near the number but that could be due to coming out of the winter weather. At one time the city had put up a 'no loitering' sign, and within a week they had bent it over and thrown it against the fence.

At 23rd and I-235, it's a problem. They litter, they cross the street (jaywalk) during traffic causing problems. About 6 or 8 months ago, a panhandler pulled a knife on a person who was stopped in the turn lane. It was more of a problem back then than it is now. I don't see near the number but that could be due to coming out of the winter weather. At one time the city had put up a 'no loitering' sign, and within a week they had bent it over and thrown it against the fence.
Making panhandling a crime isn't the solution for the problems you mention. I'm pretty sure littering, jaywalking, pulling a knife on someone, loitering, and vandalism are all crimes in and of themselves.

Making panhandling a crime isn't the solution for the problems you mention. I'm pretty sure littering, jaywalking, pulling a knife on someone, loitering, and vandalism are all crimes in and of themselves.

I think there is a difference between the rather broad "making panhandling a crime" and "restricting panhandling from certain areas". I personally don't have a problem with restrictions, say, for near a school.

More concerning about this was the process and deception employed to pass this ordinance. Thanks ACLU and Pete for posting the link.

Deception or marketing?

Deception or marketing?

Sometimes the line between the two is blurry.

Deception or marketing?

From the above linked article:

On October 9, Salyer announced the ordinance had been put on hold.

Salyer told The Oklahoman newspaper that she was interested in gathering more statistical information about traffic safety and panhandling.“There’s a need to refine the definition of ‘median’ in the proposed ordinance,” she said.

Final action on the ordinance was delayed until December 8, 2015.

However, records indicate that Salyer, city staff and others were already working to put together a deal that would allow fire fighters – and the MDA – to seek donations in the parking lots of Wal-Mart stores and the company’s smaller, Neighborhood Markets.

I would call this facet, deceptive.

Sometimes the line between the two is blurry.

that was sort of my point. I was being tongue in cheek.

From the above linked article:

On October 9, Salyer announced the ordinance had been put on hold.

Salyer told The Oklahoman newspaper that she was interested in gathering more statistical information about traffic safety and panhandling.“There’s a need to refine the definition of ‘median’ in the proposed ordinance,” she said.

Final action on the ordinance was delayed until December 8, 2015.

However, records indicate that Salyer, city staff and others were already working to put together a deal that would allow fire fighters – and the MDA – to seek donations in the parking lots of Wal-Mart stores and the company’s smaller, Neighborhood Markets.

I would call this facet, deceptive.

I guess I'm missing it. The fact that they were working on alternative arrangements for the firefighters in tandem with delaying the action?

Deception or marketing?

Or was it to circumvent the constitutional free speech issue? Note to self: Send the ACLU some money.

I guess I'm missing it. The fact that they were working on alternative arrangements for the firefighters in tandem with delaying the action?

The fact that they were telling the public that the delay was due gathering statistical information about pan handling and traffic safety when it was neither of these things but in fact finding a work around for the firefighters to collect funds.

OKLAHOMA CITY — The American Civil Liberties Union is suing Oklahoma City over a controversial ordinance that prevents people from standing in street medians.

The ACLU plans to hand-deliver the lawsuit to City Hall Wednesday morning.

“It’s very important that this thing starts where it should, which is right back to the city council,” said ACLU Oklahoma Legal Director Brady Henderson. “They’re the source of the problem that caused us to file this lawsuit.”

The lawsuit is in response to the so-called “Median Safety Ordinance,” which the city council passed in December.

ACLU suing Oklahoma City over panhandling ordinance | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2016/04/12/aclu-suing-oklahoma-city-over-panhandling-ordinance/)

Panhandling pushback: ACLU sues city over median ordinance

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record April 12, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – The ACLU is filing a lawsuit against Oklahoma City Hall and Police Chief Bill Citty, alleging that the city’s new anti-panhandling ordinance is unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation, in conjunction with Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma and Norman attorney Joseph Thai, electronically submitted the complaint late Tuesday for formal filing with the U.S. District Court on Wednesday. The organizations prepared the document on behalf of several metro area residents, including a formerly homeless vendor of the Curbside Chronicle magazine, as well as the Oklahoma Libertarian Party and the Red Dirt Report newspaper.

The heart of the matter is whether Oklahoma City’s efforts to keep people from soliciting near busy intersections will truly help avoid accidents or infringe on their constitutional freedom of speech, ACLU legal director Brady Henderson said. The original intent behind the ordinance must also be considered, he said, and evidence suggests that city leaders were motivated first by protecting business and property values.

The lawsuit cites numerous emails through City Hall accounts that show the issue began more than a year ago as a quality-of-life proposal by Councilwoman Meg Salyer in response to constituents – merchants and the Neighborhood Alliance in particular – complaining about panhandlers in intersections. It was not until much later that Citty’s staff was asked to produce data on pedestrian accidents, the lawsuit says. The ACLU recently reported on the emails, which it discovered through an open records request.

The lawsuit cites Municipal Counselor Kenneth Jordan’s warning to other city officials at the time: “The downside of adopting additional panhandling/soliciting regulations that could be unconstitutional would be a federal-court lawsuit.”

But by late 2015, the ACLU lawsuit says, a public information campaign had changed the face of the ordinance.

“All references to solicitation in the existing ordinance were to be stricken. Instead, the ordinance would sweepingly provide that ‘no person shall stand, sit, or stay on … any median for any purpose,” the lawsuit says.

The ordinance passed with minor adjustments, even though several residents spoke at City Council meetings in opposition, including the founders of the Curbside Chronicle. The magazine’s vendors receive donations in exchange for a free, locally produced magazine. Those people have since moved out of medians to other avenues.

“This is predominantly a First Amendment complaint, although it does address issues of due process as well,” Henderson said Tuesday. “It is very questionable that there’s an end result that enhances public safety. There’s actually a significant argument to be had to the contrary.”

“What the city (officials) did by rebranding this was that they already knew what they wanted to do and then they tried to figure out a justification that sounded better,” he said.

The conflict over public rights of way in Oklahoma City is not unusual. Interest in homeless newspaper and magazine publishers has grown nationwide as more nonprofit organizations seek ways to provide job training while bolstering clients’ confidence. But those movements have been opposed by municipal governments trying to provide boundaries between residents as they pass each other on the street. In the case of The Contributor in Nashville, for example, the city compromised by allowing transactions on sidewalks, while vendors are required by the magazine’s publisher to sign a contract promising to stay out of medians.

In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the Homeless Voice newspaper sued the city of Pembroke Pines after ordinances banned vendors from roadway solicitations. Newspaper founder Sean Cononie alleged city officials were disingenuous about traffic safety concerns, but a federal judge upheld the ban.

Cononie urged supporters of Oklahoma City street vendors and free speech to push back strongly – “to be as intrusive as possible” – to make a point.

“As the city takes away its most public forum, vendors are going to be forced to other spaces,” he said. “They’ll end up going door to door or sitting in front of City Hall. You’ll start to get more complaints. … They’ll seem minor in comparison with street vendors.”

Henderson said that City Hall may have already triggered unintended consequences. Curbside Chronicle vendors who are still working at intersections must deal with drivers from the passenger side of the vehicle, which requires a longer reach and distracts from traffic conditions.

He also found it ironic that city officials are intent on building a street car route downtown that brings pedestrians into potentially dangerous contact with vehicles. Henderson said many public bus stops are likewise too close to the curb for comfort.

City Hall officials said Tuesday they were aware of the ACLU lawsuit but declined to comment further. The ACLU, Legal Aid Services and Thai announced plans Tuesday to personally deliver a copy of the lawsuit to City Hall on Wednesday morning.