Richard has filed suit to nix the panhandling ordinance as unconstitutional.
This is his press statement:
Arcata, CA – On Thursday May 19th Richard Salzman filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of California against the City of Arcata claiming that their Panhandling Ordinance is unconstitutional.
In March the City of Arcata declined Salzman’s request to amend its panhandling ordinance. ”I requested that they amend their ordinance so as to comply with our guaranteed protection of free speech as outlined in the United States Constitution. Since they declined to do so I felt compelled to file a complaint yesterday in the Superior Court of California against the city” said Salzman.
Salzman has stated that he is a proud lifelong member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and staunch defender of the Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment right to free speech.
As written, the ordinance makes it a crime to merely hold up a sign asking for a hand out. By denying citizens constitutional right of free speech, Salzman contends the City Council overstepped its authority.
“If first they silence the poor and the homeless, and I say nothing, who will speak up when they try to silence me?” Salzman asked. He notes that the section of the ordinance against “aggressive panhandling,” including blocking one’s path, any physical contact or shouting, was left unchallenged by this legal action.
Read the full complaint here.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 24, 2011 at 9:31 am
Anonymous
We can regulate the time, place and manner of business for individuals who operate retail establishments, but not individuals conducting a business without a license on a street corner?
May 24, 2011 at 10:33 am
Erasmus
A bouquet for Richard Salzman! There is no constitutional justification for Arcata’s cruel ordinance, and the sooner it’s challenged and defeated in court the better.
May 24, 2011 at 10:36 am
Heraldo
Eric, you might want to post the photo.
May 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm
ED Denson
The picture Herado has says it all. Good for Richard.
May 24, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Ask a stupid question
Richard
No one will speak up when you are silent, we’ll all be glad that we don’t have to listen to your drivel.
May 24, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Jim
I disagree with the suit, although wish that it was more narrowly defined (but I bet it was crafted to avoid suits as much as possible while still addressing the problem). You might want to look into the ‘sit/lie’ ordinance down in SF that aims at similar practices.
I agree with anon; maybe that makes me an insensitive a-h$#%, but I have relatively little compassion for most panhandlers. We have myriad services for the homeless (less so for families that are homeless and those more recently on the streets). While there may not always be space, people who want out can get out more often than not, based on my social work experience with these populations.
ACLU, why do I have to have such a love/hate relationship with you!
May 24, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Anonymous
Good point Ed. The Round Table employee works for a business owner who rents property in that shopping mall and is standing there with the permission of the property owner (standing on private property, not the sidewalk). The bearded guy is soliciting too, probably without permission and probably without even a business license, although I suppose in this case he’s not soliciting money, so we can debate whether he’s operating a business or not. One activity is clearly legal. The other activity is murky at best.
If the free speech of business owners can be regulated (it can), then the free speech of people conducting business without a business license can too. Or that’s how I’d see it if I was on a jury.
May 24, 2011 at 10:44 pm
ED Denson
Well, Anonymoous 5:29, I looked at the photo again and from what I can see the pizza seller is standing in front of the Coast Credit Union so it is not clear from the photo that he has anyone’s permission to stand where he is; moreover I see similar sign holding people standing on public sidewalks (in Eureka) all the time. Also, I can’t tell from the photo that the pizza guy has anyones permission to advertise in that way – if there are time, place, and manner restrictions on the pizza place do they cover a guy holding a sign?
Assuming you are correct that the TPM restrictions can be placed on business owners are there limits to them? Can we forbid them from putting a sign on their business with its name or product? I’m very leary of TPM law as when applied to protestors they almost always operate to make communicating their message impossible. The same might be said for Saltzman’s sign. If he can’t ask for a pizza there, where can he ask for a pizza? There is case law that prohibits absolute prohibition of human rights (had to do with sleeping in parks down in Southern Ca as I recall).
It would be helpful if you could cite or better yet post the laws that you think the pizza sign guy is following, and Saltzman is not. Then, as a lawyer, I could form some idea of the credibility of the argument.
May 25, 2011 at 5:16 am
Anonymous
Ed, Coast Central very likely leases the building (like all previous tenants). Round Table is (was — it’s an old photo, Round Table closed) in the same shopping mall. Same landlord. The prime place to stand is at the corner, on the sidewalk, for maximum visibility, not set back into the private property.
There’s a very good chance Round Table knew exactly what it was doing when it instructed its employees to stand on private property.
If you think someone has permission to solicit pizza — or money — on private property without permission of the property owner, it would be helpful if you could cite or better yet post the laws that you think give such a person permission to circumvent private property rights. Then, post your address so I can operate a business on your front lawn without your permission. Under the mistaken notion that free speech lets us do anything anywhere, I think my lawn shop will sell pornographic posters. Free speech trumps all, right?
May 25, 2011 at 6:46 am
pathetic actually
TPM–lawyer jargon?
May 25, 2011 at 9:17 am
ED Denson
Pathetic – I’m typing one-handed sometimes and it is easier to type TPM than “time, place, and manner” – no jargon, just abbreviations.
Anonymous – It seems to be the law that if the private property owner didn’t want Salzman and his sign on the property, he or she can invoke the trespass laws to get rid of him and it, and even get an injunction if he keeps coming back. What would you say if he moved a few feet and stood on the sidewalk? Ok then since he’s on public property? Saltzman is not suing so he can stand on private property with his sign, he is suing so he can stand on public property with his sign.
As for Round Table instructing its employees where to stand, we don’t know that they did. True the advertising might have been more effective on the sidewalk, but perhaps they instructed him to stand there and he didn’t. How can you tell? Maybe lax supervision is why they closed.
May 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Anonymous
Agreed, the guy isn’t suing so he can stand on private property to solicit. I believe his photo faux pas — not distinguishing between public and private property — is representative of a greater lack of attention to details with regard to established case law. Of course, neither of us are lawyers, but the city attorney seems confident the ordinance is no more stringent than what’s been tested in court in other cities.
Personally, if someone was soliciting money on public property, and it could be proven it’s been done on more than one occasion by the same person, I’d want the panhandler cited for failure to obtain a business license. I have no idea how that shakes out legally; it’s just a personal reaction.
Mostly, I’m intrigued that Salzman doesn’t see this as a negative move for his political consulting. Greens and Democrats are far from united on this issue.
May 25, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Anonymous
Er, and no Ed, lax supervision is not why they closed. The parent company is in bankruptcy and it had to target locations for closure. The closures often have more to do with lease agreements than actual profitability. When a bankruptcy occurs, successful stores do get shut down.
May 25, 2011 at 7:54 pm
mresquan
Unless I am mistaken,a business or property owner could not even allow someone to panhandle in front of their establishment if it had no problem whatsoever with the panhandling under the ordinance.Shouldn’t businesses or property owners have the right to exempt themselves from the ordinance?