Ban Proposed on ‘Abusive’ Panhandling

Launching a new attack on “quality of life” crimes, a cadre of Los Angeles’ top elected officials Tuesday unveiled proposals that would outlaw “abusive” panhandling, including touching, following, swearing at or threatening people who say no.

If the proposals become law, Los Angeles would have what appears to be the most aggressive ordinance of its kind in the nation. Solicitors of any type could be cited in some cases just for sitting or leaning on public property, or for being too close to private property. Beggars would be banned on freeway offramps and street medians, near banks and ATMs, at bus stops, in parking lots or anyplace where more than three people have gathered in a line.

And no more washing car windows in hopes of a handout.

“People have a right to feel safe in their streets,” said Councilman Joel Wachs, who is sponsoring a version of the anti-solicitation ordinance that is backed by Mayor Richard Riordan. “And nobody--I don’t care what their situation is--has the right to use intimidation or coercion or fear.”

On Los Angeles sidewalks, reaction to the proposals was mixed. Some saw irony in the sanctions: a $50 fine the first time and a $500 fine and up to six months in jail for repeat offenders.

“If they don’t have money in the first place, how are they going to pay?” asked Edward Sevilla, a parks worker who sees panhandlers every day in Pershing Square. “Will they panhandle more to pay the fine?”

Others caught the whiff of election year politics in the effort, or wondered whether overtaxed police officers would be able to make the new law stick. “It sounds great, but how are you going to enforce it?” asked Art Ginsburg of Art’s Deli in Studio City. “Don’t pass it just to look good.”

Some--including some of the panhandlers targeted by the proposal--viewed it as just plain mean-spirited. “A law like that would devastate me,” said 43-year-old Michael Willie, squinting into the sun Tuesday as he sat against a wall at the corner of Highland Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard with his hand out.

Then there were the compassion-fatigued urbanites who said it’s about time. John Musser, who works for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said he thinks a severe crackdown is necessary. He said he used to give to panhandlers but after seeing the same people on the same corners for years “realized I was made a fool of.”

“My wife doesn’t even want to come into the city because of it,” he said. “She is so intimidated by it, just their presence. Just like me, she asks, ‘Isn’t there anything that can be done?’ ”

At City Hall, the answer this election year was yes. Wachs, along with three other council members, is sponsoring the more aggressive version of the ordinance, which was drafted by a private attorney who specializes in the 1st Amendment and has Riordan’s backing. City Atty. James K. Hahn has drafted a similar--though less sweeping--measure, which was introduced by Councilwoman Ruth Galanter and Mark Ridley Thomas.

While the two proposals originally appeared to be on a collision course, with Riordan and Hahn vying for attention before the April 8 election, the two men stood side by side Tuesday at a City Hall news conference and vowed to work together. Both versions will go to the council’s Public Safety Committee, which will schedule public hearings in February to hammer out a final ordinance.

Advocates for the homeless and civil libertarians vowed to fight the proposals as they wind their way through City Hall, or challenge them in court if enacted.

They derided politicians for criminalizing panhandling rather than seeking creative solutions to problems of poverty, and said the law is unreasonable because some of the things it governs--such as uninvited touching, or soliciting while intoxicated--are already illegal and others infringe on free speech rights.

“Ultimately, it can’t work. If people are desperate, they’ll be on our streets begging. You can pass these extremely detailed laws, but it won’t get people off the street,” said Maria Foscarinis of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. “When people are out there begging because they literally are trying to eke out the means to subsist, then that’s a really big problem that cities should be addressing substantively, not by criminalizing it.”

Carol Sobel, an attorney with Southern California’s American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed ordinance is impractical as well as potentially unconstitutional.

“You’re not going to get rid of this scourge--where are you going to put them? We can’t build jails fast enough,” Sobel said. “What is it you want your police to be doing? We don’t have enough people working on homicides in this city. Do we want to shift the limited resources that we have to arresting somebody who washes somebody’s window without permission?”

Riordan, who has made expanding the LAPD a centerpiece of his administration, said just having a law on the books should help deter aggressive behavior. Targeting panhandling, he said, is part of an overall community-policing strategy, and will help prevent more serious crimes, not take resources away from solving them.

“Experience tells us strong enforcement against quality of life crimes makes the city safer in every way,” he said at a City Hall news conference. “Abusive panhandling is all around us. . . . It impacts everyone. For some, [it] creates fear, for others, it’s a nuisance. Abusive panhandling must be made a crime in Los Angeles.”

LAPD Cmdr. Tim McBride said officers have long sought legislation to deal with such nuisances as aggressive panhandlers, but acknowledged that enforcement--including just keeping track of first and second offenses--could be difficult.

“Any additional tools that would help police officers solve community problems is a welcome addition,” he said. “Obviously, we’re not overloaded with manpower. Therefore, this would be a tool that would be used with discretion and common sense [only] when there are community complaints.”

Though Los Angeles is the largest city to consider such sweeping regulations, it is a latecomer in the growing trend of restricting panhandling. Twenty of the nation’s 50 largest cities--and one-third of the 500 largest--have some sort of anti-solicitation laws, most of them passed over the past two years, according to studies by two nonprofit groups.

The laws have often been challenged in court, with mixed results. The Los Angeles proposals are patterned after Santa Monica’s law, which was upheld by a federal judge last fall, though the L.A. version would take the restrictions a bit further, prohibiting people from asking for food as well as money and preventing them from begging while sitting or leaning on public property or while on offramps or medians.

New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani--who, like Riordan, is a Republican elected on a tough-on-crime platform--has received national attention and enjoyed much local popularity for his crackdown on so-called quality of life crimes, including subway scofflaws and “squeegee terrorists” who beg after washing car windows. Some experts attribute the city’s substantial drop in overall crime at least in part to this campaign.

“As a lifelong urbanite, I don’t believe there’s anything mean-spirited in wanting a downtown environment that’s free of harassment,” said Robert Teir of the American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities, which promotes anti-panhandling laws. “There’s a growing consensus that almost all panhandling is in some ways aggressive. Cities are discovering that panhandling is like a steady flow of a river: You will have as much panhandling as a jurisdiction will tolerate.”

Times staff writers Sharon Bernstein, Stephen Byrd, Angie Chuang and Solomon Moore contributed to this story.