Aggressive Marketing v. Aggressive Panhandling

I have been thinking about the amendment to the panhandling ordinance that Iowa City is in the process of passing and something about it really sticks in my craw. The city on a regular basis issues permits for restaurants to expand their seating to outdoor cafes which impinge on the sidewalks and thus pedestrian traffic. Anyone who walks the Ped Mall when the weather is good notices this and, for some, may enjoy the benefit of it. This aggressive seasonal expansion/marketing is seen as good for Iowa City businesses and the welfare of residents.

Now flip the coin to panhandlers who if they are within 10 feet of a storefront or 20 feet from an ATM are "aggressively panhandling". As with the patios, for some this aggressive marketing effort is okay and for others annoying or fear-provoking.

Now it can be argued that the businesses pay for their expansion while the panhandler does not and, I'd concede the point. However, just as taxation is progressive with the poor paying less and the more affluent paying more, it would make sense that a business would pay for the privilege.

So here is a possible solution, the city should issue panhandling permits. These should be offered at no cost to the person. The benefits would be to allow the public to know who is panhandling from them, that the panhandler has been informed of the rules, that they are responsible for abiding by them, and would apply the rules to all areas of town. Legal opinion holds them to be valid and cities like Cincinnati, Memphis, Orlando, and Durham.

True it would be more regulation, but it would also have a number of social benefits, like providing an opportunity to inform panhandlers where human support services can be found, to know the number of persons panhandling (and hence, perhaps having more accurate accounting for persons in need), and, perhaps, would be a deterrent to persons who exhibit strong anti-social behavior.