Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Sign and Messaging Program to Discourage Panhandling - CorrespondenceSeptember 24, 2019 Item No. 19 From: Marla Glabman <Marlag@glabman.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 6:58 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Panhandlers Dear City Council Members, Thank you for your continued work on the challenge of homelessness and the impact on health and safety in Newport Beach. At today's Homeless Task Force meeting, the public was invited to contact the City Council via email to provide input on a community engagement model to impact panhandling. While some may say that signs won't solve the problem, may I ask you to consider signs as a small piece of the puzzle? My respectful request of you is that you support a program that places clear, yet compassionate signs at key locations - as part of the strategy to end homelessness in Newport Beach. Please consider placing signs in Newport Center, Avocado, PCH in Cd M, and Dover @ PCH. Short term shelters, long term supportive housing, combined with very tight enforcement of even the smallest violations make up a combined approach that more cities are utilizing. Of course, signs alone aren't the answer, but they can be a small, but significant part of comprehensive plan to address a complex societal problem. Too many well intended friends give cash to folks with cardboard signs because of generous hearts and a desire to help. However, many don't think about the fact that the longer these folks live on the streets, the longer it is before they receive treatment, and the shorter their lives will be. Living in third world conditions and begging for money is a shameful way for our society to allow people to live, and in some cases, die. An additional encouragement would be to also add outreach cards that citizens can use to give to panhandlers with ways to reach help and resources, combined with a message of compassion. This may help folks who feel compelled to give money to panhandlers, and send a message to panhandlers that their efforts are better spent seeking real help. There isn't a priority more important for city leaders than the health and safety of their citizens. Sincerely, Marla Glabman Newport Beach Resident ;� www.;,labriian_coni Received After Agenda Printed September 24, 2019 Item No. 19 From: Judy Johnson <judyjirvine@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 9:03 AM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Please vote to discourage panhandling - "Giving Meters" Thank you for considering putting up signs to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers. Please vote to pass this. Also, could we do what Huntington and Laguna are doing with "giving meters"? (Excerpt from article below) ,Ji �..a° ,r Fi Ft "'Of .I f�f{ta j '... ! } l} L is f.. E.. is ST', r.> 1 �J ihf £. S,d�t .,. i.,-3i}x.FI Lek �, f }z w SNf butr py �({fly Gt � aC �c 3 yi t i {�fr�!_Ti �t.,, _ r .., Y:',. s�#�a:{f }�, i'.f; czcr ; x `give€� hand Ldp), not a h, Thank you, Judy Johnson Villa Balboa Received After Agenda Printed September 24, 2019 Item No. 19 September 24, 2019, City Council Item 19 Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 19. Resolution No. 2019-86: Sign and Messaging Program to Discourage Panhandling I suspect much of the public associates (or even equates) "panhandling" (aggressive begging) with homelessness. And although the staff report does not state such a connection, the proposed resolution does. I am not, personally, sure the two are the same and would appreciate a fact -based discussion of that. The suggested signage urging people to donate to charities does not seem as effective to me as it might be, as people may be as skeptical about where the money given to a major charity goes as they might be about how the panhandler is going to use it (and whether any of that given to the charity named on a sign will actually get to that particular individual). If the people are panhandling because they are hungry and don't know where their next meal is coming from, more than signage it seems important to educate both the indigent and the caring public (if ture) that free meals are readily available, and where, so the panhandlers can be referred there. Similarly, if they lack funds to clothe themselves, I would hope free resources are indeed available, although I don't know where. I think I would be more influenced to not feel a need to give by a sign that said (assuming it is true) something like: "Meals and clothing are readily available at no cost for those in need. Please direct them to call 211." In that the regard, the City's homelessness pages, as presently constituted, seem directed more towards assuring the public the City is "on the case" rather than actually helping the homeless or educating the public. I would, for example, find it difficult, from them, to direct a person in need to where they could find a meal, clothing, shelter or a bus pass. The County's Pocket Guide Resource Directories and their Ways the Community Can Assist handouts for the three Service Planning Areas seem much immediately helpful than anything I can find on the City's website, and it is disappointing they don't seem linked to from. That said, they do not seem to be complete. For example, I have heard the Queen of Angels church in Newport Beach provides services, but I don't see them listed. I also find it curious that the staff report mentions the challenge to a 2017 panhandling ordinance in Sacramento, since repealed (and uses that to impliedly demonize the ACLU for standing up for free speech), but does not mention that Newport Beach itself once had a code section prohibiting solicitation of any kind (not just for money) on and along the City's streets: former NBMC Sec. 10.62, enacted by Ordinance No. 96-37, repealed by Ordinance No. 2012- 12. The staff report from May 8, 2012, explains the reason for that repeal, based on a 2011 court ruling on anti -solicitation ordinances (Comite de Jornaleros v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F. 3d 936). Sept. 24, 2019, City Council Item 19 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 In this regard, I notice the flyer from Simi Valley (current staff report page 19-8) says "aggressive panhandling is illegal." Yet that appears to be exactly what the since -withdrawn Sacramento ordinance claimed to address. As to the staff report, the last paragraph of "DISCUSSSION" on page 19-2 begins with "The Homeless Task Force reviewed and discussed this topic at its meeting on September 17 with no direction provided." If the Council sees panhandling as related to homelessness, it is a little disturbing both that the HTF provided no direction at its September 17 meeting (particularly in view of agenda for that meeting containing "Current Business Item 4": "Panhandling Signage in Newport Beach -- Recommendation: Provide recommendations to the City Council on panhandling signage") and that the Council is directing the current item to proceed without further review by or input from the HTF. 2. Why did the HTF provide no recommendation? And why are the comments made at that meeting not being passed on to the full Council? a. Although the City's minutes of that meeting are not yet available, the comments from HTF members that I noted were: i. Dr. David Snow of UCI expressing his belief that panhandlers don't make a lot of money (although the $500 per month income he cited appeared to refer to the homeless population in general rather than to panhandlers specifically, and he said most homeless don't panhandle). Note: The $100,000 per year quoted by some audience members seems unlikely to me, although making more than a minimum wage of $15 per hour in a good hour does not. Ms. Helen Cameron of Jamboree Housing expressing her belief that panhandlers are a small population that could best be dealt with individually, and that the money being suggested for this program would be better spent on housing. Note: she is a director of a private corporation building housing. b. Additional audience questions Chair O'Neill asked staff to look into were: i. Do panhandlers need a business license? Is the pedestrian activity on and around medians associated with panhandling a violation of the state Vehicle Code? [The initial answer from Homeless Liaison Officer Yim was "yes" but enforcement has not resulted in any fines for doing it. It might be noted that the injunction stopping enforcement of the 2017 Sacramento ordinance was granted, in part, because "Sacramento already has an arsenal of existing laws that could punish much of the conduct targeted by the Ordinance, and the City has not shown that those existing laws are inadequate to address its concerns." It might also be noted this particular activity may not be illegal. Cal. Vehicle Code Sec. 22520.5 prohibits solicitation only from freeway Sept. 24, 2019, City Council Item 19 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 right-of-ways. A 2013 bill attempting to add medians near intersections to that prohibition (SB 604) failed — opposed, among others, by a retired firefighters organization that had in 2007 lobbied for Business and Professions Code Sec. 17510.25, which allows their members to solicit from roadways.] iii. Does the City have enforcement authority over panhandling on private property, such as the interior of Newport Center? [The initial answer seemed to be it was a matter for private enforcement unless it was on a public sidewalk.] Further regarding the present staff report, the statement under "FUNDING REQUIREMENTS" (agenda packet page 19-1) could be clearer. Account No. 01201927-980000-19T03 is not simply "General Fund." It is the Capital Improvement Program account for the City's on-going "Traffic Signage, Striping and Marking" project. While that may explain how the road signage will be paid for, a significant part of the activity being authorized by the Council (in particular, creation and distribution of flyers) seems not to fit in that program and will presumably be funded from some other source that should be identified. In both cases, the extent of the program (a sign on every pole?) and the amount of expenditure the Council is authorizing needs to be identified. And on page 19-2, under "ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW," the reference to "(insert exemption section number (short description of section)]" suggests a hastily -prepared report that has not been carefully reviewed. As to the proposed Resolution No. 2019-86 (page 19-10), 1 would suggest these changes: "WHEREAS, it is in the City of Newport Beach's interest to educate its residents that charitable donations to aid the homeless have a greater impact when directed to organized programs that help the homeless;" "WHEREAS, panhandling in medians and adjacent to roadways creates a safety risk to panhandlers and the ^^".y public;" [not all drivers are commuting] "WHEREAS, the dual pronged goal of this resolution is to educate the public to contribute to the solution by supporting the services that help break the cycle of homelessness, while also referring those who turn to panhandling towards those services." "Section 1: The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, with the advice of the City's Homeless Task Force, to take action to educate the public that directing donations to homeless service providers does greater good than giving assistance to individual panhandlers." "Section 2: The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, with the advice of the City's Homeless Task Force, to take action to discourage panhandling including, but not limited to, the development of flyers and signage that discourages people from donating money directly to people panhandling and informs the public and the indigent of the other available options. The City Manager shall have the authority to determine the content of the flyers and signage as well as the location(s) for the placement thereof. "