City eliminates provision that protects citizens against 'aggressive panhandling'

Provisions naming certain times and locations where panhandling was prohibited were also eliminated to be consistent with the current constitutional case law.

  • By Emily Blackwood
  • | 5:04 p.m. March 21, 2017
  • Ormond Beach Observer
  • News
  • Share

The city ordinance regarding panhandling was recently amended thanks to a change in the current constitutional case law. 

Section 12-255 — Unlawful Solicitation and Panhandling — was amended to eliminate aggressive panhandling and remove certain locations and time frames that prohibit panhandling. The city commission approved to take the following items off the city's Code of Ordinances Monday night: 

  • It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or panhandle between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. the following day at any location within the corporate limits of the city.
  • It shall be unlawful to solicit or panhandle on private property unless the solicitor or panhandler has the permission of the private property owner.
  • Panhandling and solicitation within this setback area, which is a high traffic area, creates traffic disruption, distraction and hazard due to soliciting or panhandling to occupants of motor vehicles.
  • Panhandling and solicitation in any public transportation vehicle or facility, including loading and unloading areas.
  • Panhandling and solicitation inside or within 20 feet of any public restroom.
  • Panhandling and solicitation within 50 feet of any automated teller machine (ATM), unless the area within 50 feet of any such ATM is located completely on private property and the solicitor or panhandler has the permission of the property owner of the property on which the ATM is located.
  • It shall be unlawful to approach or speak to a person while soliciting or panhandling in such a manner that would be reasonably construed as intended to intimidate, compel, or force a solicited person to accede to demands.
  • It shall be unlawful to block or touch a solicited person.
  • It shall be unlawful to solicit or panhandle by making false or misleading statements to conjure sympathy in an effort to obtain a donation, including, but not limited to, statements that the person is homeless, stranded, or a disabled military veteran, or that the donation is for a charity if in fact these statements are untrue.
  • It shall be unlawful to continue to conduct his activities after the potential customer or donator has requested the solicitor or panhandler to cease.
  • No solicitor or panhandler may conduct the soliciting activities in a manner which disturbs the peace of others or by violent conduct or carriage or by loud and unusual noise or by profane, abusive or obscene language or gestures calculated to provoke a breach of the peace.

According to Deputy City Attorney Ann-Margret Emery, the decision comes as a preventive measure to protect the city's ordinance after a supreme court decision expanded previous conceptions of what constituted content-based regulations when it comes to signs. 

The decision of Reed v. Town of Gilbert has been used to invalidate panhandling regulations on the basis that they are content-based and not the least restrictive means available to promote the safety of the public. 

During the city commission meeting, Zone 3 Commissioner Rick Boehm expressed his concerns. 

"It's a God-awful ordinance change that we're being forced to enact," Boehm said. "I don't like the idea that you can't stop people from talking to you or approaching you."

Emery told the commissioners that aggressive panhandling doesn't seem to be as big of a problem in Ormond Beach compared to surrounding communities and that the other provisions in the ordinance will keep residents safe. 

"The one commissioners found most troubling was the provision against aggressive panhandling," Emery said. "It doesn't feel good to strike that out of the ordinance, but I didn't feel like we had a choice." 

If they didn't take preventive measures, Emery said someone could challenge it and then they have the potienal of losing the whole ordinance. Though taking the provision out might make people uneasy at first, Emery said people who panhandle can still be charged with a crime if they go over the line. 

"It's the weird middle ground between being bothersome and being a crime," she said. "But it's not like it's a free-for-all. We still have a way to deal with it." 

 

Latest News

  • February 11, 2025
Florida elections officials urge Supreme Court to reject candidate's attempt to run for third State Senate term
  • February 11, 2025
Daytona man suspected of eyeing theft of catalytic converters tells police he was 'relaxing' under cars
  • February 11, 2025
Flagler County moves ahead with proposed airport overlay ordinance
  • February 10, 2025
Flagler Palm Coast lucky 13 sign college letters of intent at in-school celebration
×

Your free article limit has been reached this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning local news.