Panhandlers at Intersections - Legal? (Austin, Atlanta: mattresses, credit, buy)

[verybadgnome]

I believe when it comes down to is that solicitation in a public place done in a non-threatening manner is protected by the first amendment. Following someone, verbal harassment, impeding movement, or solicitation near an ATM machine are what is deemed aggressive panhandling and covered by COA ordinance. The overall situation is most of the time really simple: they have the right to solicit and you have the right either give them something or ignore them entirely.

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/loc...zWayJDZWUQwwN/

There have been calls to relax/not enforce other laws that homeless people are commonly in violation of(aggressive solicitation, public indecency, sleeping in public areas, etc.) and was last seen at a recent Public Safety Commission meeting:

June 4, 2018 Public Safety Commission - Item 6 - Austin, TX

I say never give them cash, only food or clothing. That $5 buys a hit of K2 that sends them to the emergency room with the rest of us footing the $5,000 bill.

[ScoPro]

solicitation in a public place done in a non-threatening manner is protected by the first amendment

It shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment when it creates a distracting traffic hazard for others.

If the Austin City Council wants to let the beggars run rampant and turn the streets into India-like crapholes, so be it. The majority of the citizens must like that sort of "weirdness" along with the inevitable criminality, since they continue to elect council members who advocate the freedom to behave that way.

[Trainwreck20]

They don't really concern me...I have never had an issue or incident that caused concern; honestly, I hardly notice them now.

[cBach]

Any attempt to get rid of homeless camps means they sprout up elsewhere. There was a discussion on the Houston thread about this. It becomes a "whack a mole" game.

I don't know the solution but whack a mole doesn't work.

[Trainwreck20]

Ignore a mole would .

There are food/shelter services sufficient to provide for the homeless (temporarily, at least). Not giving them money at the intersection is not a big deal; generally, just reduces alcohol/drug comsumption.

It would be nice to see some sort of mental care system since that is the main driver, but seems unlikely.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

It shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment when it creates a distracting traffic hazard for others.

If the Austin City Council wants to let the beggars run rampant and turn the streets into India-like crapholes, so be it. The majority of the citizens must like that sort of "weirdness" along with the inevitable criminality, since they continue to elect council members who advocate the freedom to behave that way.

I think phones are 10x more distracting than the homeless so maybe that would be a better place to start. As long as they are out of the roadway and/or obey the pedestrian signals I'm okay with it.

[Irishtom29]

Begging is the free market in action and as a conservative I don’t approve of government interference in the free market.

[ScoPro]

I didn't say anything about stopping the begging, just remove them from the traffic medians where they do cause a hazard. To the contrary, if the citizens of Austin want them begging everywhere in their city where it doesn't interfere with traffic & safety, have at it.

However, it isn't a "free market" when aggressive beggars wind up threatening and/or assaulting innocent citizens who do not care to part with their own hard earned money. If I had been present, I would have shot the dirtbag who took offense at my 50 year old (at the time) mother's refusal to give him money for his drug/alcohol/cigarette addiction and grabbed her purse. Of course she was probably to blame since she refused to let him steal her purse and held on to resist, thus being thrown by said dirtbag to the pavement causing her own injuries.

Anyway, I may be somewhat biased when it comes to the topic.

The cellphone hazard isn't in this discussion. That should be reserved for a special thread about "Clueless Morons Who Can't Put Their Phone Down".

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Ignore a mole would .

There are food/shelter services sufficient to provide for the homeless (temporarily, at least). Not giving them money at the intersection is not a big deal; generally, just reduces alcohol/drug comsumption.

It would be nice to see some sort of mental care system since that is the main driver, but seems unlikely.

Most of the beggars I see on Austin streets appear to be able-bodied and are probably no crazier than the people who give them cash for their addictions, so they should be recruited to help clean up their "business turf".

The ones who really are in need of mental health care should be helped, but unfortunately the politicians abandoned them starting back in the late 1950s & early '60s in California at the behest of that state's psychiatrists. The psychiatrists said they could use their new "wonder drugs" to cure, treat, or control those with mental health problems, so they didn't need to be warehoused in state institutions.

Naturally the politicians saw that as a huge money saver and proceed to empty out many of their asylums. That movement spread all over the country by the 1970s. That has contributed to the homeless population. That, and the massive increase in drug addiction which is a voluntary acquired behavior, IMO.

Today's current politicians of both parties (local, state, & national) are incapable of resolving that terrible problem.

[cBach]

When I'm in my truck the homeless don't bother me.

However, once I was on the street and a homeless guy asked for money. I only had around 35 cents on me (I usually pay with credit cards) and so I gave it to him.

He cussed at me and said "You cheap m***** f*****. I only want the green stuff."

After that I stopped giving to the homeless. I don't think they should be arrested but I am no longer giving to them. If he was truly poor, even 35 cents would help him.