There’s little doubt that Billy Scott, owner of the Front Porch, went too far in taking the fight against panhandling into his own hands. His decision in August to saw down a public bench outside his Franklin Street business clearly violated the law, and he deserves to be prosecuted for it. But, despite its obvious faults, there is a lesson to be learned from Scott’s mistake.
His approach was the manifestation of frustrations shared with many Chapel Hill business owners. He was tired of panhandlers occasionally urinating and vomiting outside his business — and for good reason. But defacing public property was an illegal and unhealthy outlet for that frustration. Chapel Hill businesses should know that two wrongs don’t make a right. They should turn to Chapel Hill police, not their handsaws, to fight panhandling.
Meanwhile, the town’s support programs and residents should see that enabling panhandlers’ behavior makes their faces too familiar for the wrong reasons on Franklin Street.
Scott might have had his and the town’s best interests in mind — but he should have turned to Chapel Hill’s magistrate, not his saw. Civil panhandling is ultimately protected under the First Amendment, but several Chapel Hill ordinances prohibit panhandling in an aggressive or intimidating manner. If the Chapel Hill police receive a complaint about a panhandler, an officer cannot issue a citation unless he catches an individual in the act of panhandling, said Kevin Gunter, spokesman for the police department.
Scott contacted authorities about panhandlers outside his business, but Gunter said he should have obtained a warrant from the magistrate for these individuals. Chapel Hill police cannot always catch panhandlers in the act, even if there is a complaint.
Franklin Street business owners must cooperate with police to discourage panhandling through legal and appropriate actions.
Punishing a panhandler is a temporary solution to keeping panhandlers off the street, but if Chapel Hill wants to eliminate its panhandling problem, a slap on the wrist isn’t enough. Warrants may work for individual cases, but for a long-term solution, Chapel Hill needs to direct panhandlers to outreach programs.
Even though civil panhandling is legal, it doesn’t mean that begging is the best option for people in need. Giving change to a panhandler sends the wrong message. It perpetuates the wrong lifestyle for those in need. Instead of feeding panhandlers’ wallets, residents should donate to programs like Housing for New Hope and the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service that assist people in need through job coaching and affordable housing. These programs are more productive for both parties involved. Panhandlers have the opportunity to get their lives on track through outreach programs and Chapel Hill residents have to deal with one fewer aggressive panhandler.
It might be difficult to turn down hungry faces requesting spare change. But it’s in their best interest to take a more proactive approach in dealing with panhandlers — and in the right manner.
