Throw the Bums Out

                                                    Agent 86 and The Chief  under
                                                              The Cone of Silence



Tomorrow night, Monday January 6, the City Council will attempt, in our own way, to do what Maxwell Smart had so much trouble doing. We will vote to pass into law a zone of protection, shielding upright citizens from those brazen enough, down and out enough, boozed out enough, or just plain at the end of their ropes enough, to beg for money. Within this mandated space the citizens of New Albany won't hear the too-loud calls from the detritus of society for a buck, so they can buy a bottle of wine or rotgut booze. Who knows, in sub-zero weather they may even squander their handful of change on some cheap gloves. The attempt is being made with the best of intentions we are told, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. But the fact remains that we will be safely ensconced within a room heated to about 75 degrees, as we debate the ordinance which will limit the ability of panhandlers to intrude upon our  view of the world as we know it. Meanwhile, the panhandlers will make do with whatever accommodations they can muster to fight off deadly cold temperatures somewhat below zero.

Mind you, the panhandlers are only being limited against the aggressive form of panhandling. They are still welcome to pursue their chosen profession of panhandling in a non-aggressive manner. (Would that be passive-aggressive panhandling?) To stay on the right side of the law, the non-aggressive panhandler must stay outside the zone of protection we decree, or 20 feet away from a list of protected areas, including, money machines, bus stops, outdoor dining areas, public restrooms, or entertainment venues, and other public buildings.

At the Council meeting for the initial readings of the bill, a New Albany policeman allowed as how the state laws on trespass cover much of the same behavior this ordinance targets. One of the definitions of aggressive panhandling refers to "asking again of a person who has refused to donate". What does that do to the selective hearing employed  when one attempts to ignore the panhandler's first attempt? Is that entrapment?

What if a panhandler only appears to be within 20 feet of the forbidden areas? Should we paint yellow lines around these spaces to better define the limits of the law? What if those safe zones fill with people too afraid to leave the relative safety there, and refuse to venture into "open-begging" territory?

On the one hand, it's fine if we pass this ordinance. We are more or less on notice that it will not be enforced. But is passage of such a long-shot ordinance a useful effort for the Council? Is it really just feel-safe symbolism? Perhaps, but in this case we are singling out the unfortunate, weak, marginal members of our society and saying that they are less than we. Again, that may not be the intent of the ordinance, but it is the effect.

If, by some strange circumstance, the law were ever to be enforced, and a panhandler were found guilty of improper panhandling, what is the penalty? First offense is a $25 fine, the second offense is a $25 fine and the third offense in twelve months is a $250 fine. Does this sound in any way odd? Does it suggest an image of bloody turnips?

At the first reading of the bill, I asked if we are to treat as aggressive panhandlers those well-dressed attendees of our Council meetings who are there to beg for handouts in the form of tax abatements, or enrichments through real estate maneuvers. It was seen by some as a joke of sorts, yet at least one of these beggars has threatened legal action if his clients were not granted what was sought. The $25 fine would probably not serve as an effective deterrent in that instance.   

One of the truly distasteful aspects of this ordinance, even though it will be ignored, ineffectual, and silly, is that, unlike the comic Cone of Silence, we are bending to the societal urge for something more like a Cone of Blindness, in which we are able to avert our eyes from the dark side of the World's Greatest Example of Capitalism. We are not forced to see the losers. Within the Cone of Blindness we need not see the people, human beings, people who, if the cards were dealt differently, could be us, or our brothers,  our sisters,  our parents. Pope Francis, noting the skewed priorities of our modern economic system, said, "If Banks fail it is a tragedy. If people die of hunger it's nothing."

The bums, the drunks, the losers, the panhandlers, are not examples of what we want for ourselves or our loved ones. They are, rather a reflection of what goes wrong in a society too penurious to properly fund mental health. We don't want to pay for services that will help alleviate the suffering of these people. We won't extend unemployment benefits. We rely on private angels to provide relief from homelessness. We don't want to face the governmental obligation of making society work for the least among us, and since the 1980s we haven't had to; in fact, we've been told "government's not the solution, government's the problem."

With the greatest season of charity and gift-giving still plain in our rear-view mirror, the Council will Monday night put in place a Cone of Silence, or a Cone of Blindness, so that we can keep our distance from those who make life in the bazaar uncomfortable for the ones who have much, but don't wish to see, or hear, those who don't. Again, Pope Francis said it quite well, "True charity requires courage: let us overcome the fear of getting our hands dirty so as to help those in need."