All motorists know the feeling.
You stop at an intersection and there is a bedraggled person standing on the corner holding a sign asking for money. The sign might say they are homeless or hungry or have three kids to take care of, and they are wondering whether you can provide some small assistance. For most drivers, this likely will result in fiddling with the radio or turning to talk with the kids in the back seat or doing anything to avoid the awkwardness of the moment while waiting for the light to turn green. It’s uncomfortable and it’s clumsy, and yet it is a natural human reaction.
You see, there are certain aspects of life that are discomforting, and the fact that some of our fellow citizens are so destitute that they would stand on a street corner begging for money is one of those. That is a problem for a country that considers itself the richest nation in the world. But, despite the best efforts of the Clark County commissioners, there is a difference between dealing with a problem and pretending that it doesn’t exist.
Commissioners recently opted to pretend that the destitute can be wished away. They passed a county ordinance, by a 3-0 vote, to bar people from entering the roadway or stopping traffic to ask for money. Never mind that state law (RCW 46.61.250) already reads, “Where sidewalks are provided it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway.” No, commissioners say that an ordinance is necessary to prevent people from soliciting money — out of a concern for their safety, of course. “We’re trying to manage a transaction that will take place immediately on a traveled part of the roadway,” said Sgt. Randon Walker of the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, who first proposed the ordinance.
While the ordinance ostensibly is about keeping solicitors out of traffic, such an argument rings hollow — as the commissioners’ public discussions about the matter revealed. Despite little evidence that safety has been an issue when it comes to panhandlers, commissioners used that aspect of the proposal to obfuscate the fact that this really is about a desire to avoid uncomfortable situations. The safety issue serves as a smokescreen for violating the First Amendment rights of some Clark County citizens.
That, in the end, is what the anti-panhandling ordinance amounts to. That, in the end, should have been the discussion that was had by the county commissioners. Because, in addition to the fact that state law already addresses the issue, Commissioner David Madore insisted upon including an exception in the ordinance that would still allow people to wave political signs near the side of the road. Expressing political opinion: Good. Being destitute and making others uncomfortable: Bad.
Undoubtedly, panhandlers can be a nuisance for motorists and, particularly, for business owners in the area. There often are concerns about the accumulation of garbage or about drug use or other crimes taking place. If those are issues, they should be dealt with directly, rather than under the disingenuous guise of a concern for safety. The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceably assemble; no amendment guarantees the right to avoid uncomfortable situations.
Homelessness is a problem in this country, and that problem often manifests itself in a public fashion on the corners of busy intersections. Telling it to go elsewhere and pretending it doesn’t exist does nothing to help solve the situation.