Friday, a federal judge ruled that panhandlers can legally approach people and cars anywhere on the Downtown Mall. This ruling struck down Charlottesville’s 2010 ordinance banning panhandling within 50 feet of the 2nd and 4th Street intersections of the Mall.
U.S. District Judge Norman Moon’s ruling affirms that the right to free speech is not reserved for particular economic classes, but rather extends to all citizens. While the city councilors who passed the ordinance said it was in the name of safety for businesses, customers and pedestrians on the Downtown Mall, this seems unlikely. The suggestion that the presence of homeless people on a pedestrian walkway necessarily affects safety is, at best, a stereotype — and at worst, classist.
The rise of court fights over panhandling started in 2012, as noted by The New York Times. As one homeless man said to The Times, panhandling is his only source of income, as it is for many homeless people. Yet in response to increases in the homeless population in several cities, those cities have chosen to limit that population’s rights — instead of taking proactive action to decrease the need for panhandling by improving living conditions and economic opportunities for homeless people.
Here in Charlottesville, homelessness is an obvious problem — a simple walk on the Corner demonstrates that. But in a city where the Downtown Mall serves as one of few pedestrian areas where people are likely to gather (as opposed to driving through in a car), banning panhandling on the Mall is effectively a preliminary step to banning panhandling altogether. Moreover, as attorney Jeffrey Fogel noted in his arguments, the City Council’s ordinance only banned panhandling and no other forms of solicitation, like political petitioning or charity drives — suggesting the reason for the ban was due to discomfort about the presence of a homeless population in that area. Having to face the issue of homelessness during an otherwise pleasant walk along the Mall is not exactly desirable — but neither is being homeless, and attempting to cast homeless individuals into the shadows to enjoy ignorance of the issue is inexcusable.
At the end of the day, asking for money is, as Judge Moon ruled, a matter of free speech. Instead of seeking an appeal, the city should find concrete solutions to solve the issue of homelessness in Charlottesville. If pedestrians are uncomfortable with this presence, they should spearhead the movement to fix the larger issue — not simply push it out of sight and out of mind. But, if the city does seek an appeal, we urge the appellate court to defer to Judge Moon’s ruling. Homeless or not, these individuals are citizens, and are therefore entitled to all the rights befitting that status.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 2 days agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | December 16, 2024It is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
