Miami

Bum a Dime, Do the Time

City of Miami passes an ordinance banning panhandling in parts of downtown Miami

By Angie Hargot

It’s no longer legal to ask for change in parts of Miami. File photo by Richard M. Brooks

Thirty-five. That’s roughly the number of times the word “homeless” was used during a 90-minute discussion of what countless Miami city commissioners, city officials, business owners and residents said is “not a homeless issue.”

With a few revisions, commissioners approved the ordinance banning panhandling in downtown Miami’s Central Business District on second reading Thursday, effectively criminalizing the act and, some say, placing limits on free speech.

The term “homeless” was often uttered by members of the city’s business sector, many of whom asked that the zone be expanded to include the blocks where their respective businesses are located and the area around the Omni mall. The ordinance was designed by the Downtown Development Authority, the city agency charged with enhancing economic development downtown.

Commissioner Angel Gonzalez joked not to send the panhandlers to Allapattah, “or I’ll be coming back with another ordinance,” he said.

The most influential speakers, local business leaders, showed up en masse to speak in favor of the ordinance. However, homeless advocates criticized the previous version of the measure because it stipulated jail time for a panhandler’s first offense, which outlawed homelessness. They also said it was inadequate to address the problem and would be ineffective since offenders probably wouldn’t have the money to pay the fines anyway.

“The coalition believes that these types of ordinances marginalize and criminalize the poor and homeless in our community,” said Ben Burton, executive director of the Miami Coalition for the Homeless. “But no one has offered any solutions.”

Although a previous incarnation of the ordinance mandated fines and jail time, first-time offenders will now receive a warning for panhandling downtown. Repeat offenders, who will be tracked via police officers, can be subject to fines of up to $100 or 30 days in jail. Those penalties double for subsequent violations.

The law also specifically does not limit an alternative to penalties that police and court personnel might take advantage of: those “suspected, charged or convicted of a violation” may be referred to “treatment programs,” according to the ordinance.

Commissioner Tomas Regalado warned that the DDA would have to make a commitment to create a “perception” that the ordinance is not “just another law on the books.”

It’s a perception that many are worried about, albeit for different reasons.
“The ACLU opposes this ordinance,” said Carlene Sawyer, chair of the Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. “This proposed ordinance criminalizes constitutionally protected speech, and it offends the fundamental rights of individuals. And that includes people who have fallen on hard times. Driving such individuals out of downtown … cannot be the way that the city of Miami chooses to deal with issues of poverty.”

“We believe it is unconstitutional,” she said, reminding the commission that aggressive panhandling is already prohibited throughout the city.

Commissioner Marc Sarnoff asked Sawyer if she believed it unconstitutional to license panhandlers; however, Sawyer informed him that the ACLU had already successfully challenged similar licensing measures.

Despite further pleas from the ACLU, the motion to ban panhandlers passed unanimously, with District 5 Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones absent.

A definition of panhandling in the ordinance had some concerned about a constitutional challenge because the wording would include anyone who asks for money in the panhandling-free zone.

“If my car breaks down in downtown and I have no money in my pocket, and I [say] to someone, ‘Can I borrow a quarter to make a phone call?’ Would that be considered panhandling?” Sarnoff asked.

“Under that definition, yes it would,” replied Assistant City Attorney Veronica Xiques. “And that was never the intent of the DDA.” She further noted that adding specific descriptions of panhandling to the ordinance could open the door to other constitutional challenges, since previously upheld court decisions have been based on the idea that the prohibited speech is “content neutral.” Instead, the amended ordinance will rely on a commonly accepted definition of panhandling. Ultimately, Sarnoff said the government can place “reasonable time, place and manner restrictions” on free speech.

However, thanks to the First Amendment, “people can ask for help,” Sawyer said.

“There is a city of Miami Beach ordinance that is currently being challenged by the ACLU,” DDA board member Jay Solowsky warned. “I point it out because we must assume that there will be a challenge to this ordinance.”

The DDA also agreed to pay for signage to “provide for fair notice and warning” in the area, according to Solowsky.

Ron Book spoke out in his capacity as chairman of the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust.

“I don’t support panhandling, I don’t find it acceptable,” Book said multiple times. “It provides the wrong message … it sanctions homelessness.” Book also suggested installing special parking meters that would collect money that “gets allocated to homeless programs.”

He added that he didn’t want to “criminalize homelessness,” and suggested penalties of either fines or jail time, but not both. 

Comments” E-mail angie@miamisunpost.com