Panhandling Problems

For the people in denial that panhandling is not a problem in Indianapolis, I may want to point you to some recent data I’ve come across.

According to IMPD, there were a total of 139 panhandling arrests in Indianapolis in 2008. So far, in 2009, that number is 124.

In 2008, most of the panhandling arrests were confined to the downtown. However in 2009, there is an sharp increase in the number of arrests that take place outside the downtown area. I noticed a number of arrests near Interstates such as I-465 and Allisonville Road, 465 and Meridian, I-65 and Raymond, 89th and Keystone, 45th and Lafayette.

In the downtown area a majority of the arrests take place on Pennsylvania, between Market and Washington. On Meridian between the Circle and South Street and on Illinois between Washington and Georgia.

The fact that this city has reached 90-percent of last year’s panhandling arrests and it’s only August tells me that this is a serious issue, because no one is arrested for just holding a sign begging for change to feed their alcohol habit. People are arrested for getting aggressive and intimidating passersby.

The anti-panhandling ordinance, which I have no problem with amendments for clarity and to not encroach on private property rights, is necessary so that citizens of Indianapolis can enjoy the quality of life they pay for either while walking downtown or getting on or off the Interstate.

Just Added:

Here is some audio from Friday’s news conference with CCC members Paul Bateman and Bill Oliver on the panhandling ordinance.

Oliver and Bateman

Posted: 08|8|09 at 7:50 am by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
Follow this entry via RSS 2.0. Comment | Trackback

http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

If people are already being arrested, then there's no need for a new ordinance. Especially an ordinance as overtly broad as the current one.

And unless you know something that I don't, no one plans to amend it. Those in power love it. It keeps the rights of the people, trying to get a few bucks or spread some sort of message, down. While at the same time, it ignores the rich panhandlers in suits at the City County Building from the Simons (represented by Bob Grand of the CIB) and the not-for-profit corporations such as Downtown Inc and ICVA.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

If people are already being arrested, then there's no need for a new ordinance. Especially an ordinance as overtly broad as the current one.

And unless you know something that I don't, no one plans to amend it. Those in power love it. It keeps the rights of the people, trying to get a few bucks or spread some sort of message, down. While at the same time, it ignores the rich panhandlers in suits at the City County Building from the Simons (represented by Bob Grand of the CIB) and the not-for-profit corporations such as Downtown Inc and ICVA.
Shorebreak

Matt, you are 100% correct. We don't need a new law. We already have them.

Additionally, Abduls statistics tell us another story that isn't being discussed: The fact that panhandling has increased and has moved to the suburbs indicates that people are being driven by economic circumstances to beg for money. It would be inhumane to pass a law making it illegal to ask passersby for help.
John Howard

I thought we had some sort of peddler licensing for the city, although I could not find a page to apply for one at indygov.com.

Why not regulate them for what they are? Street peddlers. Photographed, fingerprinted, tracked. Want to stand on a street corner and make a living? Get your permit. The hot dog vendors do. The ticket scalpers do. The taxi drivers do.

And to clarify, the CIB et al are not 'rich panhandlers' they are rich Ponzi operators.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

Shoebreak do you know what the current ordinances actually say?
IndyErnie

Our current laws are not as enforceable as some assume.

Three simple reasons why we need this proposal passed.

1) The blight that is exposed in on our city when visitor's come to Indy. Visitors have to pass countless beggars to spend their money in our stores. Fewer visitors who return = fewer sales = fewer jobs.

2) Easy unchecked access to our street corners = more crime… car jacking, purse snatching, strong arm robbery, rapes etc.

3) The life of the drunk panhandler who staggers backwards into rush hour traffic at E Washington and I465 will be spared when he isn't hit by a Metro Bus. Better yet the sober hard working father or mother of three children driving the vehicle traveling next to the bus will stay safe when the bus veers into the right lane to avoid this idiot.

Our existing law needs clarification. This proposal attempts to do that.
Dobie

Does the increase in arrests for panhandling indicate an increase in the amount of panhandling, or the increased focus law enforcement has on cutting down on panhandling?
IndyErnie

“The fact that panhandling has increased and has moved to the suburbs indicates that people are being driven by economic circumstances to beg for money. It would be inhumane to pass a law making it illegal to ask passersby for help.”

A local business woman followed panhandler home from his regular spot at Washington and I465. He drove his late model car to a three story brick home in a very affluent east side neighborhood. She then took photos of his home and knocked on his door. He was told if he returned she would forward the photos to the authorities. He hasn't returned thus far.

The 50 + yr old white guy who has been at I70 and Post road for the past four years, parks his black late model Honda in the parking lot of the restaurant behind the hotel at 21st and post.

If 1% of the drivers at the exits or corners during the day give a buck that corner is worth a $100.00 per day. Take in consideration some give $2.00 to $5.00. Some of these corners are worth $200.00 per day. That is $500.00 – $800.00 per week in untaxed income. Most of the money goes to drugs and booze.
These folks are making $20K to $40K per year untaxed. Disadvantaged? I don't think so.

Abdul, how much did you collect in your experiment? How much time did you spend begging? Do the math you will be astounded.
mike

thsi is whats wrong with america today, mostvote for a living while a few work for a living
http://www.facebook.com/chris.spangle Chris Spangle

How did they come up with so many arrests if there is no law Abdul?
Dave

Market Street pen-handling is a bigger problem. Just a thought, but could those stats be a matter of more focus on the problem resulting in more arrests?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

Why aren't they enforceable? The post has hundreds of arrests made. Sounds like they're being enforced unless you can expand on why they aren't enforceable.

Indianapolis has tons of blights. But I would hope that our government would start with more fundamental parts of a city such as filling huge potholes, maintaining roads, sewers, and city parks. Making the city look halfway decent should be the bare minimum. And then AFTER that, then we can worry about panhandlers.

Last I checked, it's already against the law to steal purses, rob, rape, and car jack. How is an increased panhandling ordinance, which is already on the books and people are being arrested for it according to Abdul, going to decrease these crimes?

We already have laws set up against public intoxication.
Indy4U2C

Soft judges make hard criminals, Matt! The problem is that those arrested receive no punishment in Marion County courts. Ask yourself, what is the penalty the softy judges are giving? Here it is: “Fines and costs, no time in jail…followed by a finding of indigency” This translates into NO PENALTY. If there is no penalty/punishment for the behavior, then why stop the behavior?
IndyErnie

Hundreds of arrests thousands of beggars, it's not because the police don't try.
Matt with all due respect if we start with the parks, potholes and sewers where is the money coming from?
What we need is outside visitors to the city. We need the retail spending. We need the sales tax revenues. We need the jobs. You make some good points about city services but without the visitor business we can't make the repairs.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

Then that's a problem with the courts, not the law itself. As clearly demonstrated, we already have the law on the books. And this law is so vague that it's almost a guarantee that it'll be abused right away.

Well, it's not technically abused because it's allowed. But it's a horribly written law, and unless there has been a massive re-writing of it (or a proposed amendment) that I haven't heard of, I can't see myself or any logical person supporting it.

The supposed crimes that these panhandlers might do (rape,murder, car theft) all have laws on the books for those and they should be prosecuted as such. Of course, anyone arrested under ordinances on the books for panhandling isn't going to receive jail time.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

The money comes from the people living here. There are tons of towns and cities out there that can provide the essential bare city services such as I mentioned without a massive tourist/convention industry.
You believe panhandling is a harm to visitors. I think someone popping a tire in a pothole while driving a rental car is much more of a threat. If you don't live here, you aren't going to be familiar with the streets. And they won't even be able to GET to the downtown area with panhandlers because they'll run into a pot hole on Meridian/College/New York/Fall Creek/38th/etc.

I also think parks (not having them, mainitaining the ones we do have) should be at least mantained. Imagine you're from out of state, staying with family in Carmel for a wedding. Driving through a part of town, you see city parks clearly marked with tall grass and weeds, broken down equipment, and so on.

I just think that panhandlers should be on the lower end of our city's concern. Both because we have laws already on the books, and because we have many more worries about it (and because the proposed additional ordinance is a waste of time and horribly written).
Name

My main concern with panhandlers is when they are out past the times the ordinances allow them to be. I have on several occasions seen people at the bottom of the ramp from 465 onto Pendleton Pike as late as 11 pm – in dark clothes with no reflective gear. This is not safe for anyone, and I can only imagine the legal fight that would occur if a panhandler out that late is accidentally killed.
IndyErnie

“And they won't even be able to GET to the downtown area with panhandlers because they'll run into a pot hole on Meridian/College/New York/Fall Creek/38th/etc.”

How about the beggars at E Washington and I465, I70 and Post rd, 56th and 465, Washington and Midhoeffer, I 70 and Keystone, 82th and I69, I465 and Allisonville, I465 and Michigan Rd, I 70 east and Harding, 38th and Fall Creek…I can go on and on. Most of these locations are five to ten miles from downtown.
The beggars at Washington and Meridian are territorial and aggressive. Just passing by two arguing over a collection spot could be dangerous.
Nice try Matt, your arguments fall short but I respect the passion.
IndyErnie

That won't be a problem. Beggars or peddlers won't be allowed within fifty feet of an intersection.
If someone is that far down an exit or entrance the State Police and IMPD can arrest or issue a ticket for walking on a interstate highway.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

You've yet to demonstrate why the current ordinances are not enough.
Shorebreak

You're arguing with the wrong guy if you want to use taxes as justification for cutting this guy off. If people are willing to hand over their money to him, what right does the government have to demand a cut? I call that extortion, under the threat of fines and/or imprisonment.

Maybe the guy IS a slouch. But I find it funny that folks like Bush and Obama (or the CIB) can rob us on a multi-generational level by lying to us and then using “legal” means, yet we're gonna push our local government to craft new laws to after some small fry who's found that strangers will pay him to hold up a sign. Doesn't that seem just a wee bit out of focus?

Don't get me wrong. My kids have asked me why I don't give these guys money and I tell 'em straight up: most of them are slouches and they only do this because people will give them money. I've even threatened a couple of them that they're gonna re-learn the meaning of regret if they knock on my window again.

But in reality, I have more respect for most of these people than for the thieves who our lying media places on our election ballots. If we're gonna pass an ordinance it should be “No thieving corporatist globalists traitors allowed within the geographic boundaries of Marion County. All of those in violation will be subject to prosecution for crimes against the state.”

That's something that I would stand behind.

FYI, I've also had a panhandler creep up behind me in the dark and lean in over top of me to ask for money while I was buckling a small child in a back seat. He won't make that mistake again.

You see, the difference between myself and those who are promoting a new law is this: I agree with laws to prevent criminal behavior. But I disagree with laws to prevent desperate human beings from asking for a handout. The fact that some criminals are panhandlers doesn't justify criminalizing panhandling. If that were a sound precedent, running for elected office would have been criminalized years ago.

Here's another thought: Panhandlers aren't a blight on the city. Panhandlers are a result of blight in the city. Raising a stink about them is nothing more than a PR game to delay the real issues from crawling up to the surface.
seanshepard

The problem isn't the panhandling, the problem is people feeding the panhandlers. You wouldn't have a panhandling 'industry' so to speak, if it didn't work.

We don't need more laws, we just need people to give their contributions to places like the Wheeler Mission and other notable assistance organizations and then quit giving directly to panhandlers.

This is an education and marketing problem and other than being a nuisance or making people feel fidgety (guilty) in their car for not forking over some money isn't really an issue. I happen to believe a lot of these panhandlers are organized and not quite so bad off as they would like us to believe but I halfway think this ordinance is more about people not having to avoid eye contact than it is about the dangers of panhandling.

Or maybe some concern about our city looking trashy. Heck, maybe we'll get lucky and some councilor will introduce some ordinance against those loud ass Harley motorcycles that are annoying as heck. I mean, only biker gang guys with tattoos, wallets on a chain, leather chaps and carrying switchblades ride those things, right? Definitely could give a city a bad image … and oh, did I mention the noise? ;-)

Seriously, as Abdul points out. Arrests are being made when the existing laws are violated. And if downtown panhandlers end up being affected, I want some change machines or parking meters that take debit cards – I trade those guys a buck for 75 cents in change all the time so I can pay tribute to the (not enough public) parking gods. :p
John Doe

“The fact that this city has reached 90-percent of last year’s panhandling arrests and it’s only August tells me that this is a serious issue, because no one is arrested for just holding a sign begging for change to feed their alcohol habit. People are arrested for getting aggressive and intimidating passersby.”

Abdul, did you read every single probable cause affidavit or are you just assuming here? There are a few things I would like to point, because as they say, the numbers don't lie, but people can lie with the numbers. I have heard that the mayor wanted IMPD to start enforcing the panhandling law. Well, the problem is that most complainants/victims of the panhandling law either want to remain anonymous or don't want to be involved with the process. So right away, we have a problem with people complaining, but who don't want to be involved in solving the issue. As such, it was my understanding that IMPD was using undercover officers, as that was the only way to really arrest these individuals. My question is what exact part of the statue are they violating?

The law reads as such:
****A person who knowingly or intentionally does any of the following commits panhandling, a Class C misdemeanor:
(1) Panhandling after sunset and before sunrise.
(2) Panhandling when the individual being solicited is:
(A) at a bus stop;
(B) in a:
(i) vehicle; or
(ii) facility;
used for public transportation;
(C) in a motor vehicle that is parked or stopped on a public street or alley, unless the person soliciting the individual has the approval to do so by a unit of local government that has jurisdiction over the public street or alley;
(D) in the sidewalk dining area of a restaurant; or
(E) within twenty (20) feet of:
(i) an automated teller machine; or
(ii) the entrance to a bank.
(3) Panhandling while touching the individual being solicited without the solicited individual's consent.
(4) Panhandling while the individual being solicited is standing in line and waiting to be admitted to a commercial establishment.
(5) Panhandling while blocking:
(A) the path of the individual being solicited; or
(B) the entrance to a building or motor vehicle.
(6) Panhandling while using profane or abusive language:
(A) during a solicitation; or
(B) after the individual being solicited has declined to donate money or something else of value.
(7) Panhandling while making a statement, a gesture, or another communication to the individual being solicited that would cause a reasonable individual to:
(A) fear for the individual's safety; or
(B) feel compelled to donate.
(8) Panhandling with at least one (1) other individual.
(9) Panhandling and then following or accompanying the solicited individual without the solicited individual's consent after the solicited individual has declined to donate money or something else of value.****

Some of these laws make sense to me, others seem very broad and I am surprised they are not protected speech. Do we really need to start locking up people who ask for a dollar just because it is dark outside? How much are we spending on incarceration, prosecution, etc.? When some of these guys get aggressive, yes, they need to go to jail. That being said, I am sick and tired of the average citizen who demands the government “DO SOMETHING!” then when asked to assist (ie: Provide a name, witness/victim statement, testify in court), they won't. If the problem is that big to you folks who can't stand panhandlers, it is time you put up or shut up. If you see or are involved in a violation of the above, call the police. Give your name, your contact info, and understand that you may have to go to court to testify.

As I stated earlier, the larger number of arrests don't surprise me. I believe it is totally based upon undercover work done by IMPD, not because there is any more panhandling issue than before.
IndyErnie

“Heck, maybe we'll get lucky and some councilor will introduce some ordinance against those loud ass Harley motorcycles that are annoying as heck.”

I'm glad that I don't ride a Harley.
Fact Checker

I just know I am sick of the panhandling downtown…I am sick of the panhandling at interstate ramps. I am sick of panhandling when I enter the CVS. If it takes stronger legal language then bring it on. I do agree with one poster. If people would quit giving money then the panhandlers would stop. If you want to help, give to an agency that helps the real poor. I think many people give out of fear and think that a dollar will buy them protection until they get away from the panhandler.
wilson46201

The weekend before Monday's major vote on Ballard's tax-increase CIB-bailout it's interesting that the topic here should be street-corner panhandling. Nice sidetracking, Abdul!

The same night as Greg & Mitch's CIB tax-increase vote, Ballard will be presenting his city budget. Will it cut $70,000,000 in “fluff”? We shall see (but I doubt it).
Amazing_Abdul

I'm here to help.
Amazing_Abdul

Someone asked how much did I make when I panhandled last summer? I made about $30, panhandling from 11-1. I took $10 and bought lunch and gave the rest to Wheeler Mission.
http://www.indytruth.org/ inDglass

I saw some students today panhandling on 86th Street for a car wash fund raiser for their high school choir. I hope they are successful in raising funds for their educational performance opportunity. Abdul wants this practice banned because he is afraid a fourteen-year-old choir girl might stab or rape him.
IndyErnie

That is and average of $20,800.00 per year tax free. That is equivalent to 25k a year.
Not bad for doing nothing all day.
IndyErnie

Ad in the public assistance ( food stamps, health care, housing assistance etc.) that these folks get and it equals a 40K per year job before taxes.
These folks are doing better than our retired seniors after working fifty plus years. It's pathetic.
IndyErnie

“Ballard's tax-increase CIB-bailout”

Your not putting this on Mayor Ballard Wilson. This CIB mess is a carry over from Peterson doing nothing when it came to governing Indianapolis for eight years. The CIB mess could have been resolved under Peterson if he had done more than create debt for Indy.

Ballard has done more for this city in a shorter time than both of your guys. Peterson was lazy and inefficient. And Carson isn't serving the residents of the 7th either. All Carson is interested in doing is what he is told by his Aunt Nancy in DC.
Pascal

http://istaexposed.com/ista_trust.html could it really be true that educational panhandlers are ripping you off for $26,000 a year? Not to hijack a topic but if Bob Grand is what he is and CIB is what it is then looking at all so called “costs” is reasonable.
patriotpaul

The proposal# 237 for Monday night can be found on this link:
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Proposals/Docu…
I have put quotes around the amendments under consideration for the code.
A PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE amending the Revised Code of the Consolidated City
and County to restrict solicitation at intersections.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:
SECTION 1. Chapter 431, Sec. 431-702 and 431-703 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated and
County be, and is hereby, amended by inserting the underlined text to read as follows:
Sec. 431-702. Prohibited activity in roadways.
It shall be unlawful for a pedestrian to sit, stand or move within or upon a roadway, or a median
between two (2) roadways, “OR CLOSER THAN 50 feet TO THE TRAVELLED PORTION OF ANY INTERSECTION CONTROLLED BY
AN AUTOMATIC SIGNAL OR STOP SIGN” for the purpose of or while engaged in:
(1) Soliciting, peddling, selling, advertising, donating, or distributing any product, property, or service,
including but not limited to tickets, handbills, newspapers, or other printed material, to or from an
occupant of a vehicle in the roadway; or,
(2) Conversation or discourse with an occupant of a vehicle in the roadway or
(3) “WHILE HOLD OR DISPLAYING ANY SIGN OR PLACARD INTENDED TO SOLICIT FOOD, WORK OR OTHER ASSISTANCE” .
Sec. 431-703. Interference with vehicular traffic.
It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, peddle, sell, advertise, donate, or distribute any product,
property, or service, including but not limited to tickets, handbills, newspapers, or other printed material,
to an occupant of a vehicle within or upon a roadway, “TO HOLD OR DISPLAY AND SIGN OR PLACARD INTENDED TO
SOLICIT FOOD, WORK, OR OTHER ASSISTANCE CLOSER THAN 50' TO THE TRAVELLED PORTION OF ANY INTERSECTION CONTROLLED BY AN AUTOMATIC SIGNAL OR STOP SIGN”, or to engage in conversation or discourse with an
occupant of a vehicle within or upon a roadway, so as to:
(1) Endanger the safety or welfare of an occupant of a vehicle within or upon a roadway, or a
pedestrian on within the immediate vicinity;
(2) Impede the free flow of vehicular traffic on the roadway; or,
(3) Obstruct or distract the view of the driver of any such vehicle within or upon a roadway.
—
The question becomes first whether the Council members have examined where 50' ends. Has anyone done a survey? I took a 50' tape measure Sunday and came within 32' from the corner to Jimmy Johns restaurant, leaving 18' proceeding INSIDE their private property. Same for the 35' from Dunkin Donuts to the corner intersection with 15' going INSIDE Dunkin Donuts , 34' from Acapulco Joes to the corner with 16' INSIDE their own establishment, and 26' from the corner of Stake N Shake with nearly half infringing into their business establishment.
Should the council pass the ordinance in present form, it is asking for problems involving usurpation of private property rights, freedom of speech, unfairly targeting a segment of our society. The current proposal if frought with more problems than the cure. Heaven help us with the 1st panhandler who has nothing to lose, when he files a lawsuit and wins, costing citizens megabucks. Given the ethically challenged nature of the CCC, nothing surprises me with an over reaching poor bill. The Indiana ACLU will have a field day.
Fact Checker

If the high school choir is that important then let the school and the parents have a fundraiser where the students will not be in danger of being hit by a car. I have no doubt that their project is important but that does not justify putting teenagers or younger kids in the middle of intersections and darting in and out of traffic.
Abdul_here

If she were a 25-year old, I would probably let her. But I'm not into cradle robbing. Maybe you are, perhaps?
malercous

That looks like the same lousy skankbro I used to see on Lindell Blvd. in the Lou a few years back. He'd be jackin' the citizens for change then too. Fool say he gonna use it to buy books, yeah, right. I gave him a dollar & told him he really needed to buy some Right-Gaurd since no book was gonna help his sorry a** less it was on hygeine.
Matt Stone

Last I checked, Mayor Ballard has been Mayor since January 1, 2008. At some point, the talking point of “we inhereited it from the previous adminstration” becomes mute. That is, unless Ballard has done something to IMPROVE the situation. But he hasn't. He's proposed to raise taxes and appoint the Simon's attorney as President of the CIB.
IndyErnie

Matt this problem was around when you were in high school. Like it or not Peterson was mayor.
Mayor Ballard has been dealing with this issue for over a year and it will come to a vote on Monday. Ballard has hardly sat on his ass for eight years like Bart did and pass the problem on to others.
I think you will see new leadership on the CIB very soon.
seanshepard

I had heard it suggested that there was actually an attempt at the State level to 'set up' Peterson for this CIB mess as nobody in their wildest dreams thought they would take back the office … I have no idea if there is any credibility to that or not (I lean not) but it was interesting nonetheless. Politicians setting up the other party to fail so they can increase their power … nah …. that would never happen.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

Peterson WAS mayor, Ballard is now. Ballard's actions have not helped the situation. He appointed the Simon's attorney (and former lobbyist for the simons) as President of the CIB. As was pointed out at the council meeting, most of the CIB are new members, a good chunk appointed from the mayor himself. He spent much of the early part of the year lobbying for more taxes and more taxes, and when he didn't get all of those taxes, the CIB magically cut it's deficit from $47 million to $20 million.

For over a year, it has been on his watch and has not helped it. If he has done anything to help not just fill the debt, but identify and eliminate the problem that caused it, I'd sure like to know.
http://www.indytruth.org/ inDglass

I didn't see anybody darting in and out of traffic, just standing on the sidewalks. Exaggerating something that is hardly a problem is exactly how we get proposals as stupid as this one.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Stone/27307256 Matt Stone

Paul, with this ordinance passing, it'll basically outlaw people having yard sales. How many of us live near a stop sign? Maybe we'll even stick a sign in the ground at a 4 way stop to direct traffic there, or have someone monitor it/hold it?
seanshepard

Thought this article was interesting given the panhandling discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09ehr…
Indiana_Barrister

Sidewalks were made for walking, not sleeping.
patriotpaul

Would the hot dog vendors agree?
Indiana_Barrister

They would if they had to go around someone sleeping on the sidewalk.
seanshepard

Thought this article was interesting given the panhandling discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09ehr…
Indiana_Barrister

Sidewalks were made for walking, not sleeping.
patriotpaul

Would the hot dog vendors agree?

Home

Join

Main Menu

Links

Panhandling Problems

RSS

Email Subscription

Search

Top Commenters

IB NEWS

FOLLOW IB