MORRIS: City must address panhandling to ensure downtown’s survival

You might have read Lindsey Erdody’s story in IBJ about U.S. District Court Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson’s decision blocking the state’s new panhandling law from taking effect July 1.

The ACLU of Indiana in April filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law, which expands the definition of panhandling in a way that effectively bans begging for money throughout downtown. The ACLU argued that the new law violates the First Amendment because it limits free speech.

I respect Magnus-Stinson a great deal. Same with ACLU Legal Director Ken Falk. But I am extremely disappointed in this outcome, because now we’re no closer to clearing downtown streets of panhandlers.

And on that note, this would be a good time to ask the question: Why did the state get involved with this issue? Why isn’t the city of Indianapolis taking charge of handling this local issue? Very simply, the state felt it had to save city officials from themselves. Mayor Joe Hogsett and the City-County Council have shown zero willingness to do anything about panhandling.

Our city leaders obviously don’t see it as a problem. This appears to be consistent with other policies from this administration. If you’re going to stand down and watch downtown be looted and set on fire without pushback, what’s the problem with some panhandlers asking for money? What’s the problem with letting people sleep on Monument Circle, bathe in the fountains and defecate on city sidewalks? What’s wrong with trashing the outside of City Market and Circle Centre mall?

Maybe I’m just outside of mainstream thinking when I believe these things are a huge problem for our capital city. But I’m not alone. The Legislature voted for the panhandling law. The governor signed it. The Indy Chamber, Downtown Indy Inc. and many downtown business owners and organizations supported it. Maybe, just maybe, Hogsett and the City-County Council are the ones outside of mainstream thinking.

Back to Erdody’s reporting. In her ruling, Magnus-Stinson wrote that the state attorneys outlined several reasons the law has compelling interest for the government but didn’t provide evidence to show panhandling threatens those interests.

“For example, they do not provide any statistics linking panhandling to disruptions to business, or showing that panhandling typically escalates to criminal behavior,” Magnus-Stinson wrote. “And simply stating that individuals may not want to be approached for a solicitation is not enough to show a compelling interest.”

Let me see if I can simplify the argument. Do nothing and we risk downtown businesses packing up and moving to the suburbs because their employees no longer feel safe downtown. Conventions stop booking Indianapolis because their members don’t feel safe downtown. The resulting dwindling numbers of people downtown force hotels, and even more restaurants and businesses, to close. Then you’ll have your evidence and compelling interest. The point here is, we’re trying to act now to prevent these things from happening.

Panhandling is just one factor of many contributing to Indianapolis’ decline. Does a record number of homicides concern you? Downtown Indy’s vitality, success and, really, at this point, its very survival, are worth fighting for. We can’t just throw in the towel and say this is the way it’s going to be.

So, I’m encouraging the state to give it another go. Let’s see if there is a law that can be written that stands up to legal challenges. The state has to save Indianapolis from itself, because why would we have any reason to believe we can expect anything different from the city?•

__________

Morris is publisher of IBJ. To comment, send email to gmorris@ibj.com.