Panhandling bylaw sign, Columbia Street

By Mel Rothenburger

ARMCHAIR MAYOR

ROTHENBURGER: More on how we try, and mostly fail, to control panhandling

Jul 20, 2019 | 6:46 AM

SUPPOSE YOU’RE AT THE BANK MACHINE and there’s a panhandler sitting or standing there and he asks you for some spare change.

Would you feel comfortable sliding your bank card into the machine and withdrawing some cash? Probably not, especially if the panhandler becomes persistent, and maybe follows you down the sidewalk.

Now suppose a bylaws or police officer approaches this same panhandler, who’s parked back at his spot beside the ATM. With no bylaw restricting panhandling, the conversation might go something like this:

“I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to move along, sir. You’re making people uncomfortable.”

“What if I don’t?”

Boogie The Bridge

Boogie The Bridge Event Information

Apr 19, 2024

Two and Out

PETERS: Try as he might, Allan Schoenborn will never be forgotten

2h ago

One Man's Opinion

COLLINS: Sorry - did you say, 'Take your old guns to the post office?'

8h ago

“Well, nothing. I’m just asking.”

“OK then. I think I’ll stay right here. Have a nice day.”

The point being, panhandling needs to be regulated. And as soon as we regulate something, there must be penalties for not abiding by those regulations.

The response to my editorial earlier this week about the new Salmon Arm panhandling bylaw calls for some elaboration.

Every time a city adopts a panhandling bylaw that includes fines, the media treat it as something brand new. “B.C. city targets homeless population with $50 fine for panhandling” was the headline on CTV’s story about Salmon Arm.

But there’s nothing new about it. The city of Kamloops adopted an anti-panhandling bylaw — with a $100 fine — in 2003. I know, because my name’s on it as the mayor at the time.

A year later, the province passed into law the Safe Streets Act, which bans aggressive panhandling provincewide. Contravening the Act can bring a fine. Police are allowed discretion on enforcement.

Penticton and Kelowna — and, of course, Salmon Arm — have panhandling laws of their own. Nelson very briefly had one, then changed it into a “pedestrian behaviour” bylaw. With a fine.

Sylvia Lingren, a Salmon Arm councillor and a former NDP provincial candidate, opposes fines and wants businesses to display photos and biographies of local panhandlers alongside a collection jar. I leave you to judge whether such a tactic would pass the privacy test, or any other test.

Managing panhandling is a challenge. Panhandling itself is not illegal. The use of fines drives poverty advocates bonkers. As I mentioned in my editorial, they point out that if panhandlers had money to pay fines they wouldn’t have to panhandle, and they’re right.

Several years ago, a panhandler in Toronto died owing almost $35,000 in fines, and the news story implied he’d amassed them under the Ontario panhandling law.

If all those fines were indeed for panhandling, Toronto’s enforcement is obviously more than a little over the top.

Anti-panhandling fines shouldn’t be about creating a cash cow for City Hall and it wouldn’t work anyway. Fines need to be levied only in the most extreme cases. What they do is provide authority for the enforcement of regulation.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but the purpose of a panhandling fine is to never have to use it. Let’s look at the 2003 Kamloops bylaw.

It doesn’t attempt to outlaw panhandling. It prohibits it within 10 metres of a bank, ATM, bus stop, bus shelter and entrances to liquor stores, churches and movie theatres. You can’t panhandle from someone who’s in a parked car or a car stopped at a traffic light. You can’t panhandle between sunset and sunrise, and you can’t sit or lie on the street for the purpose of panhandling.

If you ask for money and that person says no, you can’t ask again. Breaking these rules makes the offender liable to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $2,000. (Setting maximum and minimum fines is pretty standard in bylaws.)

Sound pretty restrictive? It is, but the circumstances outlined in the bylaw are the ones in which panhandling becomes the biggest problem for the public. Being in need of some money doesn’t give anyone the right to infringe on the security of others.

So someone sitting or lying on a sidewalk asking passersby for money can be told to move. The fine is a deterrent to not abiding by the rules of the community.

But, panhandling bylaws are no solution, you say. The real solution is housing, healthcare, employment programs, attention to mental health and attacking the root causes of poverty.

Of course. Long-term solutions are a major focus of government and taxpayers invest heavily in them. However, as with many things, short-term answers are also needed. Those who find bylaws distasteful insist “There must be a better way” but the best they can come up with is Installing yellow donation boxes on parking meters (it doesn’t work) or putting photo of panhandlers in businesses.

Every once in awhile, there’s a call for a review of the Kamloops panhandling bylaw. So let me be clear about this before the hate mail starts arriving. Panhandling is a social issue, it’s legal and it’s not going away.

Panhandlers have rights. The public has rights. Panhandlers don’t have a right to make others feel unsafe. Panhandling needs to be managed. Fine-based bylaws are imperfect but if they’re used with proper discretion they help.

With the exception of ill-advised schemes like confiscating shopping carts and licencing panhandlers for busking, Kamloops is pretty tolerant of panhandlers. It’s easy to condemn the use of bylaws but nobody so far has come up with a better answer.

Mel Rothenburger is a former mayor of Kamloops and newspaper editor. He publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a director on the Thompson-Nicola Regional District board. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.

—

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or the Jim Pattison Broadcast Group.