Springfield City Council last night repealed a controversial ordinance designed to curb “aggressive” panhandling in the Queen City following recent court decisions indicating the rule violated freedom of speech.
Proponents of the repeal, including Springfield City Attorney Dan Wichmer, said a lawsuit brought against the city in December by the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as recent case law that has struck down similar ordinances, necessitated council’s consideration.
According to information in the bill, the recent decision of Reed v. Town of Gilbert by the U.S Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment right to free speech has prompted several federal court decisions striking down municipal panhandling and aggressive solicitation ordinances similar to Springfield law adopted in January 2014.
The now-stricken panhandling ordinance was developed by the Park Central Square Task Force, a collection of business owners and civic leaders who recommended the changes
in November 2013 to council’s Plans and Policies Committee to address safety concerns. The approved ordinance prohibited panhandling within 20 feet of business entrances or exits and sidewalk cafes and within five feet of a street or sidewalk. A couple of council members seated at the time voted against the measure, citing concerns about violating freedom of speech.
Council voted 8-1 last night in favor of repealing the ordinance.
“A lot of these people are not always aggressive,” said Councilman Justin Burnett, who shared a story from a Zone 2 resident that was paid back by a panhandler who frequented a nearby alleyway after receiving the diabetic supplies he needed.
Councilman Ken McClure said repealing the ordinance was the correct course of action.
“We took an oath to support the Constitution, and that means support it when we agree with it and when we disagree with it,” McClure said, adding he felt recent case law was clear. “Council, in my opinion, would be derelict in its duty if it did not adhere to and follow the dictates of the court.”
Councilwoman Kristi Fulnecky cast the lone vote against the repeal, saying she felt the ordinance was worth fighting for because it protects residents.
Fulnecky said she’s heard feedback council shouldn’t waste taxpayer money fighting the ACLU, but feels it’s better than arguing with the county or members of council. She alluded to an upcoming hearing designed to determine her eligibility to serve on council despite owing business taxes at the time she was elected last year.
“If you are going to spend money on anything … why don’t we spend money fighting for something that actually means something to our citizens?” Fulnecky said. “We have municipal law for peace and decency, and I think the end goal of the ACLU is to get rid of all municipal law.”
An ACLU spokesperson could not be reached for comment by deadline regarding the lawsuit against the city.
Wichmer said at the meeting a more narrowly drawn panhandling ordinance is possible should it prohibit requests for money in areas such as medians because municipalities are allowed to create laws designed to protect public health and safety.
