City Beat: Council quarrels over downtown restrictions

Nobody on City Council seemed to get their way entirely. Supporters of four proposals – concerning panhandling, skateboarding, food distribution and smoking largely in the downtown area – such as Springfield Councilman Jeff Seifried, saw only two approved as they were written, while a staunch opponent of the measures, Councilman Doug Burlison, wasn’t pleased to see any new restrictions adopted.

At the Jan. 27 council meeting, members approved proposed restrictions on public activity downtown, while largely gutting a panhandling bill through a passed amendment and tabling a food-distribution ordinance.

The four proposals are updates to city codes developed by the Park Central Square Task Force, a collection of business owners and civic leaders who recommended the changes in November to council’s Plans and Policies Committee to address safety concerns.

The governmental body voted to amend a prohibition on panhandling around Park Central Square and tabled an ordinance requiring groups and individuals to register with the Springfield-Greene County Health Department before distributing food in the area.

Council members Burlison and Cindy Rushefsky – who often differ on issues, such as restricting the over-the-counter sale of ingredients used to manufacture methamphetamine – joined forces to oppose broad restrictions on passive panhandling across the city.

Together, they called for an amendment to the panhandling ordinance that would have restricted requests for money in downtown and most public spaces beyond. The amendment, which passed with a 6-3 vote, allows passive panhandling downtown and in public places such as sidewalks that are at least 5 feet away from roads. Mayor Bob Stephens, Jan Fisk and Seifried voted against the amendment.

Rushefsky said she felt it was unconstitutional to effectively prohibit people from asking others for money and food in public.

“There is a First Amendment right to free speech involved in panhandling,” Rushefsky said. “We’ve all sworn to uphold the Constitution, and I think we all have an obligation to do that. I’ve heard it said, ‘Let’s go ahead and pass it. Maybe, nobody will contest it, and we can enforce.’ To me, that is not upholding the Constitution of the United States.”

Burlison agreed and said adding more restrictions on visitors to downtown was a bad idea.

“My fear is that with these packages tonight, we are going to overshoot our target and perhaps create a bad economic situation in the downtown area,” Burlison said. “People may have the propensity to think of this as an area where there are so many rules and regulations that they will go to a different place to spend their money and have some fun.”

Councilman Jerry Compton said doing nothing would provide an advantage to private retail spaces, such as the Battlefield Mall, compared to retailers downtown because mall owner Simon Properties can prohibit unwanted panhandling.

“We have a lot of folks who have invested their sweat equity in trying to revitalize their downtown area,” Compton said, adding that panhandlers represented an obstacle to growth. “The mall prevents that by its own rules, and it’s private property, so we allow them to enforce that. Well, the downtown merchants don’t have the luxury of a buffer zone. This is their front door.”

Council approved the amended panhandling measure, which restricts panhandling on medians and highway shoulders across the city, by a 7-2 vote. Burlison and Rushefsky remained opposed to the bill even with their amendment in place.

Also by a 7-2 vote, council passed new restrictions on smoking on Park Central Square and surrounding sidewalks with exceptions for businesses with outdoor seating. Councilman Craig Hosmer was among supporters countering Burlison’s criticisms of the measure by noting outdoor smoking already is prohibited at city parks.

Only Burlison opposed restrictions on skateboarding in the central downtown area.

Councilman Craig Fishel moved to table the food-distribution ordinance until council could arrange to meet with residents who voiced opposition to the measure. The mayor didn’t want to wait on the issue and voted against tabling the bill.

The Q Place
Miller Commerce LLC plans to redevelop apartments on the southwest corner of Holland Avenue and Bear Boulevard into a new student-housing concept named The Q Place, but uncertainty surrounding tax abatement might threaten the project.

Springfield Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith introduced the redevelopment plans during the public hearing but could not answer Hosmer’s queries into the potential tax break values. No tax impact analysis had been performed – a common step for developers seeking a blighted designation in order to receive the property tax incentives – according to Smith and developer representative Shawn Whitney, an attorney with Husch Blackwell LLP in Springfield.

Smith said the area was declared blighted in 1965, which meant Miller Commerce would not have to perform the analysis for council. The company, founded by Matt E. Miller, has had a hand in developing $100 million in projects, including Deep Elm, Brick City and Wilhoit Plaza, according to MillerCommerce.com.

Hosmer said he was still awaiting a committee meeting to discuss the wide-ranging impact of abated projects across the city that Smith promised in November.

“I’ve been on council since April, and it seems like we’ve had one or two abatements every meeting,” Hosmer said.

Smith said a meeting scheduled Dec. 20 was canceled and would likely occur Feb. 14.

Smith said should council approve the plans – following unanimous Planning & Zoning Commission approval Jan. 9 – the abatement would be effectively secured. The developer would only need to show the four-member Land Clearance Redevelopment Authority that the project plans hadn’t changed to receive abatements on new improvements for up to 25 years.

Whitney said a calculation of the projected abatement amount could be produced for council. He argued that redeveloping property in blighted areas is expensive compared to building in undeveloped areas, and it provides a benefit to the city, which is why the incentive is available.

Hosmer said blight is too loosely defined and approving an abundance of abated projects would hurt taxing districts.

“We blight where developers want us to blight, not where real blight exists,” he said.

The project calls for 29 apartments comprising 116 bedroom units for lease. A second reading and vote is scheduled for the Feb. 10 council meeting.[[In-content Ad]]