Panhandling/loitering at intersections

[sgrizzle]

Why is this not illegal and/or being enforced? Other cities have passed laws saying no standing within x feet of an intersection for safety and why can't we? The "will work for food" shift workers are getting to be everywhere, and I was a bit concerned with the woman who had her baby and sound daughter in a pack and play 6 ft from the 91st and memorial intersection yesterday.

Could also get rid of "support my random sports team" people standing in intersections with buckets too.

[carltonplace]

Just make it illegal to give them money. Problem solved.

[DolfanBob]

I think a bigger problem is the QT panhandlers at several locations around town.
31st and Sheridan is really bad.

[cannon_fodder]

I hate panhandlers. HATE. No one has ever gotten themselves out of poverty by begging, it is not a solution to whatever problems the person may have. But panhandling has decreased commercial traffic in areas, caused suburbanites to avoid areas, caused panhandlers to be smushed by traffic,  made people uncomfortable, and pissed me off.

1) QT will give them the boot. Tell the clerks, they relish the opportunity to chase people away but can't unless a customer complains.

2) Tulsa has been discussing am updatedpanhandling ordinance for years, currently "aggressive begging" is a $200 fine.

Section 1407. - Aggressive begging prohibited.
A.
For the purpose of this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given herein.
1.
Beg means to stop or accost another or direct persons or animals to stop or accost another or direct persons or animals to stop or accost another, and to ask for money or other thing of value, either by words, bodily gestures, signs or other devices.
2.
Public place is an area open to the general public, including but not limited to streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, parking lots and buildings open to the general public, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them.
3.
Hinder or obstruct means to walk, stand, sit or lie in such a manner as to block or attempt to block or restrict passage by another or to a require person approaching to take evasive action to avoid physical contact.
4.
Repeatedly means two (2) or more times within a period of one (1) hour.
B.
It shall be unlawful and an offense for any person to aggressively beg as defined by this section. A person is guilty of aggressive begging if he or she:
1.
Repeatedly begs in a manner that hinders or obstructs the free passage of any person in a public place; or
2.
By physical action while in the act of begging, intentionally causes or attempts to cause another person to reasonably fear imminent force or violence upon his person or upon property in his immediate possession, or commission of any criminal act upon his person or upon property in his immediate possession.
(Ord. No. 17023)

Section 1408. - Penalty.
Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00), excluding costs, fees and assessments. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense.

(Ord. No. 19605)

https://www.municode.com/library/ok/tulsa/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TUCOOR_TIT27PECO_CH14DIPE_S1407AGBEPR

OKC recently passed a more robust ordinance, and will be facing a challenge from the ACLU calling it protected speech (remember, the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech):
http://www.newson6.com/story/30192843/aclu-of-ok-proposed-panhandling-ordinance-is-unconstitutional

3) We've been here before. A quick Google search reveals there is about 3 news story a year on the topic. We've discussed it to.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=5174.0
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/tulsa-officials-looking-to-strengthen-existing-panhandling-ordinance/article_41fa88c0-e4ca-5c08-afbd-2932177e7cf7.html


I, for one, am in favor of doing anything possible to chase the deadbeats away. The shift changes really do make me laugh, but seeing people hand cash to these people make me want to run up and ask if I can have a few bucks too. Hell, I usually see it on my way home from work.

There has to be thousands of beggers around town. Take into account all the intersections you see them at and multiply that by the shift changes, and I'm positive it surpasses the number of homeless.

Irrational anger?  Maybe.

To answer the original question - sitting by the road with some lame sign and passively asking for cash is probably not against any law in Tulsa.

[swake]

A couple of days ago at Memorial and the Creek Turnpike it was a young couple that looked to be in their early 20s. They were clean and decently dressed and looked in good health. The signs said "anything helps". Helps what? You buy a dime bag? They didn't even try to look needy.

[sgrizzle]

What I'm suggesting is what other cities do which is make it illegal to loiter near an intersection. That skates the ACLU challenge as you're not attacking what they do there, just the fact they are there.

[heironymouspasparagus]

OKC still has as many as Tulsa standing at the 'prime' corners.

[Townsend]

$200.00 fine for giving money to a panhandler.

You won't get fine money from the panhandler but the city can squeeze it from the person handing out the dough.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

$200.00 fine for giving money to a panhandler.

You won't get fine money from the panhandler but the city can squeeze it from the person handing out the dough.

That's what they did in Oregon. Panhandling is actually freedom of speech according to the Oregon State Constitution, so that's hat cities have done is pass an ordinance fining the person giving the money.

http://www.hermiston.or.us/sites/hermiston.or.us/files/File/city-council-agenda-packets/14nov10/11d1-panhandling.pdf

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-22-panhandle_N.htm

[Red Arrow]

That's what they did in Oregon. Panhandling is actually freedom of speech according to the Oregon State Constitution, so that's hat cities have done is pass an ordinance fining the person giving the money.

http://www.hermiston.or.us/sites/hermiston.or.us/files/File/city-council-agenda-packets/14nov10/11d1-panhandling.pdf

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-22-panhandle_N.htm

How well does it get enforced?  Sting ops?

[Hoss]

How well does it get enforced?  Sting ops?

Quick!  Send Smoot out there, he'll clean it right up!

[Red Arrow]

Quick!  Send Smoot out there, he'll clean it right up!

He can't be everywhere but he might try.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

How well does it get enforced?  Sting ops?

I don't know about any sting ops, but from what I understand when they put the signs up after plenty of public notice that it was going to be done, and since it falls into the traffic law, you can be cited for it as a primary offense. I've been told that when the put the signs up, people rather quickly quit giving money to the people on the corners. They started with the areas that had the most problems which were the off ramps for I-5, then around the mall area, and it seems to work quite well.

I don't think Smoot could handle it here, most people here use something that he doesn't have, common sense.

[swake]

I don't know about any sting ops, but from what I understand when they put the signs up after plenty of public notice that it was going to be done, and since it falls into the traffic law, you can be cited for it as a primary offense. I've been told that when the put the signs up, people rather quickly quit giving money to the people on the corners. They started with the areas that had the most problems which were the off ramps for I-5, then around the mall area, and it seems to work quite well.

I don't think Smoot could handle it here, most people here use something that he doesn't have, common sense.

Would that ordinance outlaw Smoot's DUI roadblocks?

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Would that ordinance outlaw Smoot's DUI roadblocks?

DUI check points were banned in Oregon in 1987.

The idea has never quite taken hold in Oregon, where the constitution has no room for it.

Checkpoints are feared as an infringement of constitutionally guaranteed liberty, allowing search and seizure actions by police without probable cause. If we make an exception for alcohol, then what would be next?

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/02/sobriety_checkpoint_ahead_lets.html

Although there is movement to make a change because of legalization of pot in the state, it still requires a change to the state constitution.

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/investigations/2015/02/02/bill-could-allow-sobriety-checkpoints-in-oregon-again/22775143/