Public Safety Meeting - Prohibition on Panhandling Ord. 2006-200, Election Day reports of Voter Suppression
Richmond City Council
Public Safety Committee Meeting, Nov. 7, 2006
Present: Jackie Jackson [8th District], Chris Hilbert [3rd District], Bill Pantele [2nd District]
ISSUES IN THIS REPORT:
• The Criminalization of the Homeless Poor, Council Ordinance 2006-200.
• Voter Suppression in the Northside, 3rd District.
This was election week and two of Council's committees meetings were canceled. Monday's Organizational Development Committee was rescheduled for Monday Nov. 13 at 1 PM. And today's Health, Human Services, and Education Committee was cancelled.
Yesterday's Public Safety Committee meeting started late at 4:13 PM and ended by 5 PM. Ms. Jackson called the meeting to order at 4:13 with Mr. Hilbert present. Ms. Jackson held off approval of the minutes until Mr. Pantele arrived (He arrived approximately at 4:20 PM.) Ms. Jackson opened the floor for
Mr. Melvin Jones, a citizen of the 4th District, recognized Mr. Hilbert and thanked the Richmond Police Dept. for working in his neighborhood and on Chamberlayne Ave. regarding prostitution. Mr. Jones acknowledged, "Still got a lot of work to do." Ms. Jackson asked Mr. Jones about a response or resolution to an incident report, I believe this was in reference to an incident Mr. Jones reported to Council where some young men harassed him in front of his house. Mr. Jones said, "things are ok right now," he's working with a detective and has been in contact with Lt. Robert Marland, Special Events Unit, and Capt. John Hall, 4th Precinct Commander. He said the police have been working with him well "but the kids are still out there but we're working with them. It's a hard job."
After Mr. Jones, I spoke in opposition to Ord. 2006-200. I reminded Ms. Jackson and Mr. Hilbert that I had spoken against the ordinance at two prior committee meetings. Initially, I repeated my previous objection to the designation of a general geographic area, the Central Business District, as being too broad of an area to limit the expression of Constitutionally protected commercial free speech. I stated that the ordinance is a prohibition on free speech, and I am a defender of Free Speech. "This paper makes no reference to housing, jobs, or opportunities for homeless people. I don't think this is a solution, to further criminalize the homeless, the people who are already at the bottom of the social network. To use police resources to essentially harass these people. And then to throw them in jail when it would be more economical to provide them with housing in the first place." I also said that I was surprised by the lack of participation in past meetings by the homeless shelter community. I said I hoped the legislation dies.
Ms. Jackson told me that new legislation had been prepared that deleted the reference to the Central Business District. She also mentioned that a section had been added to allow panhandling at night "in any public place which is illuminated by a light source bright enough to identify such person." What I didn't realize yesterday, that I am now realizing as I study the paper and write this article is that the ordinance is even worse now than it had been in an earlier draft. Indeed, the reference to panhandling being prohibited in the Central Business District was changed to "twenty (20) feet in any direction of any establishment that engages in cash transactions during the hours of operation of such establishment." Effectively creating a city-wide prohibition on panhandling within 20 feet of every business during business hours -- an even larger area than the previously proposed area of the Central Business District. What will be the effect of such legislation? Where is the fiscal analysis of the impact? What about transient individuals who are not familiar with the laws in Richmond?
Ms. Jackson said, "Our issue is not trying to prevent people from getting the services that they need. The issue is a safety concern."
To which I responded, "This doesn't really address the safety issue because the person isn't breaking a law until they rob you... There are laws that already apply to these crimes like robbery, theft or assault. Not until a person commits a crime are they guilty of anything. They are just exercising their free speech. They're the poorest members of our society, and they deserve the sympathy and the pity of all the people of the city of Richmond. You know, the bible tells us to give to the poor, and you want to criminalize them and throw them in jail, and I'm opposed to that."
Ms. Jackson to me, "I appreciate your position, again, this isn't for those that are passively out on the corner with a sign requesting money. This is for people who are aggressively coming after people as they enter or leave a facility. That is the difference." I tried to interject but Jackson continued, "If they are truly in need, there are many -- and probably why you don't see a lot of the homeless organizations represented is because they are underutilized. And so, for them to show up here, they would have to show up here and say 'Well we have plenty of beds, we have plenty of services that are not being used' because -- we went, I went to them first before we even started this to make sure that there was an opportunity for them to come back and say, 'Well, we can really understand why people aren't doing it because -- we don't have space for them, we don't have..."
"You don't have space for them at the City Jail either," I interjected.
"We don't want them in the jail, I mean that's not the point," Ms. Jackson replied.
I shot back, "Well, it's a Class 1 misdemeanor and people can end up in jail for that. A jail which has an HIV rate of 60%, Mr. Black reported at the last Informal Session [Finance Committee Meeting, Oct. 18, 2006]. And that's a pity. Not only is it twice over its designed capacity, but it has this giant HIV problem that isn't being addressed by the City."
Ms. Jackson replied, "Well, we can explain away all our issues with one or another reason why. So I guess, we don't want to put any other other laws in place as well because our jails are overcrowded. So at some point you have to begin looking at the problem and addressing the problem. And those are some of the things we're going to begin doing as well.
"You're the body that's supposed to fix these problems. You're the elected government of Richmond, and I think the policies of our government are creating more problems. Putting non-violent drug offenders in jail, that's a tremendous drain on our resources... Prohibition doesn't work and it creates more problems than it attempts to fix." I thanked the committee for their time and Ms. Jackson thanked me for coming up.
Ms. Jackson asked for any other public comment. No one else spoke and she began to discuss the only paper for consideration on the Agenda, Ordinance 2006-200, to prohibit panhandling within 20 feet of an ATM or any business during business hours.
VOTER SUPPRESSION.
Mr. Hilbert piped up to make a brief statement: "Apparently, hear this is going on all over our city today. It's a sad commentary on where we are. I think most of us would have hoped we would be past this point. But there was an obvious attempt to suppress voter participation in my district today. From what I understand several blocks of Cliff Ave., Lamb Ave., and Woodrow Ave. -- door hangers were put on the doors. They were yellow, high quality, glossy -- indicating to people that their voting precinct was J.E.B. Stuart Elementary. In fact, people that live on those streets vote at North Ave. Library.
Public Safety Committee Meeting, Nov. 7, 2006
Present: Jackie Jackson [8th District], Chris Hilbert [3rd District], Bill Pantele [2nd District]
ISSUES IN THIS REPORT:
• The Criminalization of the Homeless Poor, Council Ordinance 2006-200.
• Voter Suppression in the Northside, 3rd District.
This was election week and two of Council's committees meetings were canceled. Monday's Organizational Development Committee was rescheduled for Monday Nov. 13 at 1 PM. And today's Health, Human Services, and Education Committee was cancelled.
Yesterday's Public Safety Committee meeting started late at 4:13 PM and ended by 5 PM. Ms. Jackson called the meeting to order at 4:13 with Mr. Hilbert present. Ms. Jackson held off approval of the minutes until Mr. Pantele arrived (He arrived approximately at 4:20 PM.) Ms. Jackson opened the floor for
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Mr. Melvin Jones, a citizen of the 4th District, recognized Mr. Hilbert and thanked the Richmond Police Dept. for working in his neighborhood and on Chamberlayne Ave. regarding prostitution. Mr. Jones acknowledged, "Still got a lot of work to do." Ms. Jackson asked Mr. Jones about a response or resolution to an incident report, I believe this was in reference to an incident Mr. Jones reported to Council where some young men harassed him in front of his house. Mr. Jones said, "things are ok right now," he's working with a detective and has been in contact with Lt. Robert Marland, Special Events Unit, and Capt. John Hall, 4th Precinct Commander. He said the police have been working with him well "but the kids are still out there but we're working with them. It's a hard job."
After Mr. Jones, I spoke in opposition to Ord. 2006-200. I reminded Ms. Jackson and Mr. Hilbert that I had spoken against the ordinance at two prior committee meetings. Initially, I repeated my previous objection to the designation of a general geographic area, the Central Business District, as being too broad of an area to limit the expression of Constitutionally protected commercial free speech. I stated that the ordinance is a prohibition on free speech, and I am a defender of Free Speech. "This paper makes no reference to housing, jobs, or opportunities for homeless people. I don't think this is a solution, to further criminalize the homeless, the people who are already at the bottom of the social network. To use police resources to essentially harass these people. And then to throw them in jail when it would be more economical to provide them with housing in the first place." I also said that I was surprised by the lack of participation in past meetings by the homeless shelter community. I said I hoped the legislation dies.
Ms. Jackson told me that new legislation had been prepared that deleted the reference to the Central Business District. She also mentioned that a section had been added to allow panhandling at night "in any public place which is illuminated by a light source bright enough to identify such person." What I didn't realize yesterday, that I am now realizing as I study the paper and write this article is that the ordinance is even worse now than it had been in an earlier draft. Indeed, the reference to panhandling being prohibited in the Central Business District was changed to "twenty (20) feet in any direction of any establishment that engages in cash transactions during the hours of operation of such establishment." Effectively creating a city-wide prohibition on panhandling within 20 feet of every business during business hours -- an even larger area than the previously proposed area of the Central Business District. What will be the effect of such legislation? Where is the fiscal analysis of the impact? What about transient individuals who are not familiar with the laws in Richmond?
Ms. Jackson said, "Our issue is not trying to prevent people from getting the services that they need. The issue is a safety concern."
To which I responded, "This doesn't really address the safety issue because the person isn't breaking a law until they rob you... There are laws that already apply to these crimes like robbery, theft or assault. Not until a person commits a crime are they guilty of anything. They are just exercising their free speech. They're the poorest members of our society, and they deserve the sympathy and the pity of all the people of the city of Richmond. You know, the bible tells us to give to the poor, and you want to criminalize them and throw them in jail, and I'm opposed to that."
Ms. Jackson to me, "I appreciate your position, again, this isn't for those that are passively out on the corner with a sign requesting money. This is for people who are aggressively coming after people as they enter or leave a facility. That is the difference." I tried to interject but Jackson continued, "If they are truly in need, there are many -- and probably why you don't see a lot of the homeless organizations represented is because they are underutilized. And so, for them to show up here, they would have to show up here and say 'Well we have plenty of beds, we have plenty of services that are not being used' because -- we went, I went to them first before we even started this to make sure that there was an opportunity for them to come back and say, 'Well, we can really understand why people aren't doing it because -- we don't have space for them, we don't have..."
"You don't have space for them at the City Jail either," I interjected.
"We don't want them in the jail, I mean that's not the point," Ms. Jackson replied.
I shot back, "Well, it's a Class 1 misdemeanor and people can end up in jail for that. A jail which has an HIV rate of 60%, Mr. Black reported at the last Informal Session [Finance Committee Meeting, Oct. 18, 2006]. And that's a pity. Not only is it twice over its designed capacity, but it has this giant HIV problem that isn't being addressed by the City."
CORRECTION
12/05/2006
Mr. Harry Black, Richmond's Chief Financial Officer sent an email dated Dec. 4, 2006 which stated, "HIV inmates constitute less than 1% of the overall inmate population." If you listen to the audio clip it is understandable how I could make such a mistake.
Ms. Jackson replied, "Well, we can explain away all our issues with one or another reason why. So I guess, we don't want to put any other other laws in place as well because our jails are overcrowded. So at some point you have to begin looking at the problem and addressing the problem. And those are some of the things we're going to begin doing as well.
"You're the body that's supposed to fix these problems. You're the elected government of Richmond, and I think the policies of our government are creating more problems. Putting non-violent drug offenders in jail, that's a tremendous drain on our resources... Prohibition doesn't work and it creates more problems than it attempts to fix." I thanked the committee for their time and Ms. Jackson thanked me for coming up.
Ms. Jackson asked for any other public comment. No one else spoke and she began to discuss the only paper for consideration on the Agenda, Ordinance 2006-200, to prohibit panhandling within 20 feet of an ATM or any business during business hours.
VOTER SUPPRESSION.
Mr. Hilbert piped up to make a brief statement: "Apparently, hear this is going on all over our city today. It's a sad commentary on where we are. I think most of us would have hoped we would be past this point. But there was an obvious attempt to suppress voter participation in my district today. From what I understand several blocks of Cliff Ave., Lamb Ave., and Woodrow Ave. -- door hangers were put on the doors. They were yellow, high quality, glossy -- indicating to people that their voting precinct was J.E.B. Stuart Elementary. In fact, people that live on those streets vote at North Ave. Library.
CORRECTION
12/05/2006
Councilman Mr. Chris Hibert at Council's Formal Meeting of Nov. 13, 2006 reported that this was not a case of Voter Suppression XXX. Listen to the audio.>
Labels: Free Speech, Panhandling Prohibition, Suspected Voter Suppression
posted by Silver Persinger at 12:09 AM
0 comments
