Anti-lingering ordinance constitutionality questioned

By Caroline Watkins and Jeanna Smialek
Updated: 10/06/11 10:35am
  Email this article  |      Share on Delicious  Share on Digg
Tools

Possibly Related

_A previous version of this story was incorrectly headlined “Carrboro debates constitutionality of panhandling.” The Daily Tar Heel apologizes for the error. _

Local officials are torn between preserving public safety and protecting First Amendment rights.

The Carrboro Board of Aldermen has unanimously supported repealing the town’s anti-lingering ordinance, which prohibits day laborers from standing at the corner of Jones Ferry Road and Davie Road, except between 5 a.m. and 11 a.m.

The ordinance’s constitutionality was called into question at a Sept. 13 board meeting.

And like Carrboro, Chapel Hill politicians and candidates must heed First Amendment rights — in this case, as they address panhandling.

First Amendment and day laborers

The Board of Alderman plans to repeal the anti-lingering ordinance once it has a new plan for handling day laborers in place. In one alternative, the town could station a police officer at the corner to deal with the public safety issues that prompted the ordinance’s enactment.

The ordinance was enacted in 2007 after residents complained about day laborers urinating, littering and harassing people at the corner, where many Latino workers wait to be picked up for work every day.

“This kind of ordinance is very absurd, especially in a place like Carrboro, which prides itself on adhering to the Constitution,” said Christopher Brook, staff attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

He said the coalition sent a letter to the Board of Aldermen this summer stating its belief that the ordinance violates the right to assemble. The letter sparked the discussion on repealing the ordinance.

Brook said he worries about the precedent the rule could set.
“This ordinance could be used as an example and a model to make things very difficult for the day laborer population,” Brook said.
But Town Attorney Michael Brough said he does not believe it is unconstitutional.

“The concern that we’re restricting constitutional rights is hard to sustain,” he said. “The ordinance does not apply to every square foot of every street.”

David Ardia, a UNC School of Law assistant professor, said the day laborer issue makes this First Amendment question controversial. But he said he sees the debate as productive for Carrboro.

“Carrboro will face great difficulty in proving constitutionality because of the hurdles of speech and assembly, but that’s how it should be.”

Chapel Hill’s panhandling

Candidates for Chapel Hill’s Town Council elections have suggested creating panhandling-free downtown areas.

But Sgt. Allison Finch of the Chapel Hill police said panhandling occurs in public space and is constitutionally protected.

“Basically the town says that people have the right to panhandle as part of their First Amendment right to free speech,” she said in August.

Candidate Lee Storrow said the policies could be problematic.
“They are public spaces that every person has a right to be at,” he said.

Contact the City Editor at city@dailytarheel.com.

Published September 26, 2011 in Carrboro Board of Aldermen, City

12 comments

Roberta47
September 27, 2011 at 9:47 AM
Flag this comment

While I too believe in everyone’s first amendment rights, which includes the right of panhandlers to occupy public spaces, I for one have been intimidated by some, not all, of the people asking me for money.

I have been followed and I have had people put themselves in front of me, blocking my way.

Read more …

On the other hand, I have also had those who merely ask for money as I pass and I have had someone offer to have their dog do a trick in exchange for a donation. I have no problem with this type of panhandling, or, in the case of the dog, selling a service on the street.

What concerns me are the aggressive people. Not being either a lawyer or in law enforcement, I don’t even know if that behavior is legal or not, and if not, the question is how do we prevent that kind of panhandling while permitting the others.


Safety First
September 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Flag this comment

I think safety should come before panhandling. Just like you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater for safety reasons, panhandlers shouldn’t be able to harass residents and visitors.


Roberta47
September 27, 2011 at 1:37 PM
Flag this comment

Safety First, are you referring to all panhandlers or just the aggressive ones?


Wow
September 27, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Flag this comment

The DTH continues to miss the mark. The anti-lingering ordinance has nothing to do with panhandling. The problems from that corner/intersection are from littering, public drinking, fights, etc. NOT panhandling. This has got to be one of the worse “newspapers” I’ve ever read.


GWK
September 28, 2011 at 8:29 AM
Flag this comment

Wow,

The author is bringing to light two comparable situations; in Carrboro, day laborers gathering in public spaces, while in Chapel Hill, panhandlers downtown. In both cases public safety has been called into question. The dilemma is preserving public safety while not infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights.


doustoi
September 28, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Flag this comment

Are the day laborers congregating there illegal aliens? And if they are, why is there even a discussion about Constitutional rights? Illegals don’t have any.


Wow
September 28, 2011 at 10:47 AM
Flag this comment

GWK,
Is that why the title reads, “Carrboro debates constitutionality of panhandling?” Ehhhhhh, errrrrrr.


Gary Kramling
September 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM
Flag this comment

Wow,

Accidentally substituting “panhandling” in the title for “day laborers assembling” doesn’t make a bad article—although clearly there was a slip by the editor.

Read more …

I thought the article was quite clear and the comparisons valid. By no means do I feel this article reflects poorly on the authors. I’m surprised you did.


Hugo
September 28, 2011 at 1:40 PM
Flag this comment

What’s there to debate? Begging and panhandling is illegal in this country. I guess we could debate whether these people should be allowed to be in carrboro or whether they even have a right to live. That would be much more substantive.


Kurt
September 28, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Flag this comment

Hugo, a right to live? I certainly hope all supporters of the ordinance don’t feel that way.

As for fighting, drinking, and public urination, all of those are already illegal so the unconstitutional ordinance is not necessary. Also, when did we get comfortable with punishing all for the bad acts of a few.


Wow
September 29, 2011 at 11:05 PM
Flag this comment

Gary,

It’s not so much this “slip,” but the cumulative effort by DTH journalists. Wrong facts and misquotes are so common that it’s sad really.


Judith Blau
October 1, 2011 at 8:55 AM
Flag this comment

There is no panhandling at the Corner. Men are waiting for employment, and are fully protected by the Fair Labor Standard Act. Responding to complaints of local residents they are developing a Code of Conduct.

Have you interviewed them?

 
Join the discussion
You Should Know

The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to remove any comment deemed racially derogatory, inflammatory, or spammatory. Repeat offenders may have their IP address banned from posting future comments. Please be nice.

If this is the first time you've commented, your comment won't appear until you've verified your email address.

Formatting Options:
  • Links: "my link":http://my.url.com
  • Bold: *something!*
  • Italic: _OMG!_
Powered by Detroit Softworks