More Law or More Ingenuity?

The Iowa City city council is considering a more restrictive aggressive solicitation ordinance that would keep panhandlers and street musicians at least 15 feet from each other, would limit the area within the Ped Mall to something like a putting green on a miniature golf course for them to ask for help, and disallows the use of obscene language on solicitation signs. In asking the city council to reconsider the need for the more restrictive ordinance at their last meeting, I asked the members to look at current data to drive their decision, as they typically do when considering fiduciary matters. By a couple of the city council members’ own accounts they have been given no data that indicates any arrests or citations have occurred since the original aggressive solicitation ordinance was put in place over six months ago. That ordinance already prevents panhandlers from being within ten feet of store entrances and exits, fifteen feet from crosswalks, and twenty feet from ATMs, among other things.

Given as reasons to support the new ordinance is the request coming from the Downtown Association that there have been complaints by customers concerning some of the panhandlers bothering their customers and the effect is this hurts DTA businesses. Not to second guess the council or the DTA, but if there is a "problem" with aggressive panhandlers and street musicians on the Ped Mall, why aren't current laws being enforced?

The goal the City seems to be leaning toward is the systematic eradication of (or vastly limiting Ped Mall access to) those seen as "undesirable" by the business/real estate owners and others, whether they are acting in accordance with the current law or not. If the “data” that is driving their decision are the potential dollars and cents that businesses feel would come from a Disney-like public center, they should be straight forward and say so. If that is the intent, I’d go so far as suggesting that the City sell the Ped Mall to a real estate developer who could then privatize the space formally. At least then the real costs of doing business would not fall on the taxpayers.

As far as the notion that downtown is somehow unsafe? Why send the message to be afraid of downtown or the people in it. There is an old adage that works: “there is safety in numbers.” To ensure the numbers of people that are needed to support local businesses, incentive is needed to keep locals and out-of-towners discovering the specialness of downtown Iowa City. Look at what already brings people downtown: Friday night music, Saturday and Sunday night movies, art walks, theater, and festivals are all crowd pleasers. Why not work smarter to harness the power of individual creativity and community resources to convince any doubting Thomases that our downtown has a lot to offer and to support? Bring in a crowd and you won’t have to worry about a relatively small number of people.

To be clear, every businessperson is looking for a way to boost their bottom-line and that is her or his individual right. Panhandlers and business people probably at least this in common; they both want to make a living. But, as long as the Ped Mall is a public commons, the rule of law should balance a private request with the public good. The Iowa City bottom-line, in this case, should be to leave well enough alone.

Garry Klein is a member of FAIR! and Citizens for Community Improvement

Protest Press Conference Scheduled Tuesday

PRESS CONFERENCE: FREE SPEECH ON THE PED MALL
Iowa City, IA – On June 1, 2010, Iowa City Council will be considering a third reading to reduce the free speech zone of the Ped Mall to appease business interests that lobbied its members. We find this to be abhorrent to the 1st amendment Rights of all Iowa Citians and ask the City Council to reconsider passing this ordinance. On June 1st at 6:30 pm in front of City Hall, Citizens United for Free Speech will have a press conference to present our side of the story. Members of Iowa Citizen's for Community Improvement, the ACLU, the Bill of Right's Coordinating Committee, FAIR!, as well as street performers and fund-raisers for non-profit groups who will be affected by enacting a more rigorous "aggressive panhandling" ordinance will also be on hand.

As of the release of this notice, the current ordinance has not resulted in the citation or arrest of one person that it was intended to address. Our group is calling for a review of the enforcement of the current ordinance and asks the City Council to delay the last reading of the ordinance until more facts that would justify the action are presented by those who desire the law changed. We will share our survey results (see: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/J6LHR7G) that shows few Iowa City residents or visitors find the Ped Mall to be a dangerous place or unappealing to visit and because the impact for any group seeking goodwill donations will be permanently impacted by the Council's decision, believe this is a "solution seeking a problem."

Last month, the Mayor of Seattle, Washington, Bill McGinn, noted about the aggressive panhandling bill that he vetoed and his City Council backed up, "Although being asked for money on the street can be uncomfortable, it isn't illegal and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that this is protected speech." He also noted his concern that the law would be leveraged unfairly against those who were perceived to be a threat. We share his concerns.

Transcript from 5/10 Panhandling Discussion

Below is the transcription from the 5/10 Iowa City Council meeting which included a second consideration of an "aggressive solicitation" ordinance modification, the details of which can be found here.

ITEM 18. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES," SECTION 2, ENTITLED "AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING," TO PROHIBIT SOLICITING FOR MONEY IN LIMITED AREAS IN THE DOWNTOWN. (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Hayek: This is second consideration, and staff has requested expedited action.
Bailey: Move second consideration.
Wright: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Wright. Discussion? We clearly have some members of the public here, so…sign in or…or put your name on a sticker and put it on the, uh, book please, and state your name and…address us.
Klein: Uh, good evening again, Garry Klein again, and still at 628 2nd Avenue, as far as I know.
Hayek: And, Garry, I’m sorry to interrupt you. I’m going to ask that people limit their comments to three minutes tonight. Based on the late hour, and the number of people who apparently need to address us. (both talking) Just so everyone can get…
Klein: May I ask the Mayor if…if I run out at three minutes, can I come back for another three? Cause I know this is more than three minutes. I timed it.
Hayek: Yeah.
Klein: I was timing for five, but three I…
Hayek: We’ll play it by ear.
Klein: Okay. Okay, so uh, I…first of all, I wanted to thank everyone behind me for coming. I was surprised. This…when I sent you a letter, I understood I was the first correspondence that the City Council had heard from about this, uh, about this issue, other than the…the person who spoke at the last meeting. So when I sent that letter, uh, I did for three specific reasons. One, I wondered if this is an overkill measure, given my understanding that exactly zero, uh, aggressive panhandling citations have been issued, if I understood, uh, from the Council Members…I asked that question of…of that issue. So if we already have something that’s working, and we have three or four other ordinances that can be used if people get out of hand, why are we here tonight? Why are we here at this late hour? Um, secondly, as a person who’s been before this Council many times
_____________________________________________________________________________
on free speech issues, um, this further limitation of free speech, essentially putting people in the planters to keep them away from the entrances of businesses seems, again, to be, uh, not very promising given that these same folks may be our…our street musicians, as well as folks like student groups who are raising million…over a million dollars for things like, uh, dance marathon, as an example. Um, and finally, is this really fair to other businesses in downtown, I mean, we’re…we’re treating the ped mall as this very special place, where the rest of downtown has to kind of contend with the fallout when we keep making…making rule changes in that area. Um, so I can understand, given what I just heard about the, uh, from the money for block grant money why perhaps you haven’t heard from, uh, some of the non-profits and their issues. But I also…uh, I guess there are people, as you see behind me, who have a views…a viewpoint that differs from yours, or at least your first vote. So, I want you to think about the different between meaning well and acting well, because we all mean well. Everyone here means well, that’s why we’re here tonight. I think in making your first consideration you meant well…to make things better for the…for businesses on the ped mall. I understand there are issues. But for everybody I hear who says there’s a problem on the ped mall, I read something or see something on a community program that says, we love…here, can I give you a direct quote. This is from a…a tenant on the ped mall. Downtown is safe. I feel safe. Everybody watches out for each other. It’s not just a place to do business. It’s a place for friends to meet and to hangout. Well, a lot of people believe that, and that’s why they’re down there, and it’s not just about business, even for the business owners, apparently. I did contact the DTA to find out who are these people who said we need to do this now, and I was told, well, we’re not going to tell you, so I wonder, did they tell you? Uh, thirdly, um, you know, you have a Member on the Council who frankly may, in my estimation, at least have an ethical consideration in making a vote. Why? Because he has a business on the ped mall. Two he has, uh, in the past made statements about his feelings about panhandling, and how that affects his business. There’s an economic interest at play here. My concern then is that for fairness that…that that person really consider whether it’s through a moral compass or through a higher power, whether it’s appropriate to vote on this issue. Um, so…the last thing I’m going to say, and I’m going to move out and let other people talk, is that at the very least, you mention that this item is being asked to be expedited by staff. What I’m asking you to do is get more data, for crying out loud. If what I’m hearing here is zero people have been arrested on existing aggressive panhandling ordinance, why are we trying to make it harder? So having said that, I…my request to the Council is let’s separate these votes out. There may be more people who need to be heard from, including the Downtown Association. I’m…I’m not saying that I’m the arbiter of all things that are right about the City. I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that there are people who are going to be affected, and it’s not just the…it’s not the usual suspects. And with that I’ll…I do want to, uh, give something to, uh, for you guys to look at. You may have seen this. It’s called preventing panhandling. There’s a lot of different ways we can approach this thing. It’s good information, and maybe we can try education over adjudication.
Hayek: Mr. Klein, for your information (applause) Mr. Klein, so that you and the others understand, there’s no present motion to consolidate the second and third readings of this item. The…the motion is to pass second consideration, which would still leave the third consideration for the next City Council meeting. (unable to hear person in audience)
Wright: Not tonight!
Hayek: Not tonight.
Fidelis: My name is Libris Fidelis, and of course I live downtown at Capitol House Apartments. Uh, I have made a previous correspondence, connection, uh, through the emails, uh, to the City Council, and I believe I spoke at one of the previous, uh, Council meetings, but I’m not sure if I did or not. The pending Iowa City ordinance concerning the allegations of panhandling, uh, is both labeled and prejudicially, uh, excessive in its effect upon denying basic United States’ civil and constitutional rights to a minority of this City’s impoverished citizens. In the four years that I have lived downtown in Capitol House Apartments, I have regularly, almost daily, made at least six or more round trips per week walking on the downtown sidewalks and right through the ped mall, which is now being labeled by the Sheraton Hotel as “City Plaza.” Those daily walks have been especially, going to the Wesley Center Free Lunch program on north Dubuque Street, and Capitol House Apartments, from Capitol House Apartments, uh, but also randomly I’ve been going to the Wedge for occasional breakfast, to the Iowa City Public Library, to the Bread Garden Market for groceries, to the Post Office, uh, to the Downtown Transit Center, to Old Capitol Mall and to various food establishments for meals. Never in my four years of walking downtown have I witnessed anything remotely resembling what is described in the proposed ordinance as aggressive behavior as the result of impoverished solicitations that have regularly been asking for charitable assistance from the public in presence. Yes, I have witnessed the very rare, occasional minor violent or threatening gang altercations in the ped mall area, but those are very rare, and has never involved impoverished solicitors who are regularly asking for charitable handout donations. There are two very serious civil rights denial issues that our City is attempting to press into, uh, ordinance. First is to deny the City, by City ordinance the right of certain minority citizens to be present in certain locations in our city. A second is to deny this, by City ordinance, the right of certain citizens to communicate their plight with the public, in the hope that some minor monetary aid will be forthcoming from an understanding and sympathetic public. Any restriction or denial of these two basic fundamental human and constitutional rights results in civic disqualification of citizenship rights upon a certain selected disadvantaged segment of our society. Such an act by ordinance if passed by Iowa City Council will be therefore a response to a perceived non-reality that the issue might concern public safety when directed to historically peaceful, impoverished solicitors. But rather, this is actually a personal vendetta by certain commercial
economic special interests, that originates from a dislike for seeing in the public presence the apparent low-income and non-income disadvantaged citizens who come to the central downtown area to solicit for generous but meager charitable assistance. The end result of this ordinance is, if approved, uh, by Iowa City Council, will be a prejudiced ordinance that is aimed at excluding citizenship on a particular segment of our society, just because of their personal appearance and activity to solicit charitable handouts in a typically peaceful manner. This committee, uh, Iowa City committee, uh, Iowa City Citizens Community Committee urges that this ordinance must be stopped now by a City Council vote against passage. It is both immoral and presents a caste making precedence for our city, which I believe will only result in a more probable civil rights lawsuit, which our City cannot win, and which will incur the wasted legal expenses thereto for our City to pay. Vote against this potentially tragic and defaming ordinance now. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you. (applause)
Smithers: Uh, my name is David Smithers. I’m from…I live in Wellman, so I’m an ex-urban Iowa Citian. Um, I’ve lived and worked and went to school in…the greater Iowa City area for nearly 40 years. At least five of those years, mostly in the 70s, I lived in Iowa City itself. Uh, the downtown of Iowa City together with the University of Iowa campus is a historic and vital commons. Not only to Iowa City, but essentially to the world. We’re a UNESCO Literature City (mumbled) to Iowa and to the nation. The commons needs to be protected in order to protect the First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. The commons has existed in downtown Iowa City, and the U of I campus, in conjunction with commerce and residential usage, for over 150 years. Uh, changes in commerce have induced…include an influx of federal dollars. The urban renewal that started in the mid-60s and just ended not too long ago. Uh, to the present day. It has also seen changes in transportation, and the nature of the pedestrian experience. Much commerce has fled to the…the malls and the big box stores for sure, where there exists cheap land and free parking. The congregation of people in such commercial areas has not been (mumbled) by any notion of commons though, and that is a very mixed bless…blessing indeed. Free parking is no substitute for free speech and free assembly. And that’s the reason for people like me, and other people, go to downtown Iowa City to…to mingle and to shop and to eat and get Library books and so on. And, yes, occasionally people, uh, protest down there, and some people ask for help. It is, uh, a vital dynamic for this city and it’s part of our history. Now a dark cloud is closing in…over us, and I’m not just talking about volcanic clouds from Iceland, that’s bringing down our cold rain. Post-911 America has witnessed increased laws of security, especially security of property. Human rights, including economic human rights, has taken hits, such as English-only laws here in Iowa, where place immigration, enforcement raids, restrictions to protect and sometimes, um, restrict free speech, something called free speech zones. That was mentioned not too long here…long ago here in Iowa City, uh, a few winters ago in Des Moines, uh…homeless people were cleared out of their heated hooches by the City of Des Moines, in the dead of winter, and now Iowa City with, afraid of its increased socio-economic and ethnic diversity has spewed forth with curfews and prohibitions on youth groups, uh, congregation..congregating, and now increasing restrictions on homeless people, among them neglected veterans, asking for help. Two thoughts come to my mind, well…two things bother me. Arizona immigration laws, and now this! Uh, Iowa City becoming more, progressive Iowa City becoming more intolerant. One word comes to my mind, I hate to say it: boycott.
Hayek: Thank you.
Clark: Excuse me (noise on mic). Good evening, Mayor, Council Members, my name is Sarah Clark and I live in the, uh, northside of town. Iowa City already has an ordinance in effect that, um, which outlaws aggressive solicitation. I would like to see some evidence that the current ordinance has not been effective. Why is there a push for further restrictions? It seems to me that these changes are being driven by one organization’s perception that downtown can only be rescued by further restricting certain persons and their activities. I’m in downtown Iowa City several, uh, several times a week, often to visit businesses within the ped mall zone. Not once have I felt threatened by someone panhandling…panhandling. Nor have I ever been directly approached by anyone asking me for money. What I have seen on a number of occasions are one or two individuals sitting quietly near the curb holding a small sign asking for a donation. Are these persons aggressive, in their panhandling? No, they are not. Have…how have they reacted, have they reacted in an aggressive or threatening way when I acknowledge them, but say that I cannot give them a contribution? No, they do not. These proposed changes to the ordinance have already created some unintended consequences as evidenced by a letter to the editor in today’s Press-Citizen from University of Iowa Dance Marathon organizers. Are you now going to amend the proposed ordinance changes to provide exceptions for non-profit organizations? You head down a slippery slope when you begin to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable solicitors. I think these proposed changes are unworthy of the Iowa City I love. Rather than corral panhandlers into an even smaller area, wouldn’t it be more productive to provide information about local social services? One of the reasons I chose to move to Iowa City last year was because I knew it was not a ‘one flavor’ city where everyone looks and acts alike. The diversity of ped mall users, including panhandlers and solicitors from non-profit organizations contributes to the wonderful vitality that we enjoy in Iowa City. I believe the proposed ordinance would have a detrimental impact on that vitality, and I urge you to reject it. Thank you very much.
Hayek: Thank you. (applause)
Bennett: Hi, I’m Darcy Bennett, the Executive Business Director of Dance Marathon, and I’m just here to inform you on how the panhandling ordinance could go ahead and affect our organization, as well as other non-profit organizations. We are a
student-run philanthropy that raises funds for children with cancer, pediatric oncology patients and their families, treated at the University of Iowa Children’s Hospital. The money that we raise goes directly to the Hospital and the community surrounding it with the…area families who are treated here. For the last three years we have raised over a million dollars each year for pediatric cancer families and patients. With the money raised we provide financial, emotional, and social support to these families. There are many programs that have been implemented with this, including child life assistance, summer programs for oncology patients and their siblings, and hospital renovations. We also fund a lot of the small things, like a dinner every other Sunday night, and parking vouchers for hospital ramps that can really mean a lot to families who are staying in our hospital for weeks to months at a time. We recently donated $1 million actually to the University of Iowa College of Medicine to fund renovations to a research laboratory and to the establishment of a research fund. We work year-round to raise funds and awareness for pediatric cancer, and during the weekend in February, we celebrate the lives of those children who have passed before us, and who are here with us today, in a 24-hour event. In order for students to join our event, they are required to raise $400, and much of this money is raised from our downtown panhandling, as you may call it. In the past years we’ve raised up to $30,000 per year with this downtown panhandling, and even though that doesn’t sound like much to a million dollar organization, it really, truly is. In…to put it in perspective, uh, we spent $30,000 per year for holiday gift cards that are donated just to the families so they can go ahead and provide presents and different things for their children around the holidays. We understand the main objective of this ordinance, but it does pose problems for a non-profit organization, like ourselves, and many others. One of the fundraisers that we, as I have mentioned earlier, do is kind of called ‘canning’ where we ask dancers or student participants to ask for donations in the pedestrian mall from 11:00 PM to 2:00 AM. This opportunity allows students of any socio-economic status to raise funds for pediatric oncology, as well as continued participation in an educationally beneficial activity during the late-night and weekend hours. This new ordinance would greatly decrease the amount of participants allowed to fundraise in this manner. We normally would have 30 students out on one night and this may decrease down to 10 students on a particular night. And, many students in our organization really do rely on this source of fundraising, as many of our dancers, including myself, do not have wealthy family members who can go ahead and cut a check for $400 in order for them to participate in our event. For this reason it is really important that we do offer this opportunity to students to be able t supplement their own fundraising costs, and as necessary be able to raise the full amount through downtown ‘canning.’ Not only will this decrease our student participation, but it may also affect the amount of money we are able to give back to the Iowa City and University of Iowa community, as you’ve heard previously. We are constantly revising the ‘canning’ program to abide by City ordinances and the University of Iowa cash handling stipulations. We’ll be willing to make adjustments as you feel necessary to please the general public; however, if this is passed in the current format it could directly impact the amount of money we are able to raise in our downtown ‘canning’ program. So, as a result, we would just like to ask you to possibly think of a revision for this for non-profit organizations or I don’t know all of the stipulations behind everything, so just kind of consider us when you’re thinking about passing this ordinance. And I would like to thank you for your time and just ask you to consider us, as well as the pediatric families and patients.
Hayek: Thank you. (applause)
Fiegen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name again is Tom Feegan from greater Iowa City. Given the late hour, let me be brief. I have two concerns about your ordinance. The first relates to the First Amendment. We have an inalienable right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and it appears to me that this ordinance, including the tightening of the panhandling, is a abridgement of that right. The second is, the ped mall in our fine city is a unique public space. One of the prior speakers referred to it as a ‘commons.’ And, it is that, and it offers to all of us, all citizens of Iowa, all visitors to Iowa City, a unique patchwork that includes people that may be offensive to some of us, that may be different than all of us, but they are part of Iowa. They are part of Iowa City, and this ordinance in essence seeks to push them into the shadows, because there may be some inconvenience. There may be some uncomfortableness, and I would say to you as the elected representatives of this city and this patchwork quilt that you do not pass the second reading of this ordinance, and you do not shunt these people who are human beings into the dark corners of Iowa City, but allow them to be part of the patchwork that is our ped mall, that is our downtown. Thank you. (applause)
Hayek: Anyone else wishing to address the Council? Briefly, Garry!
Klein: It will be very brief. I…I wanted to offer…I was about to say a fig leaf, but that would be inappropriate. A, uh, a…olive branch! That’s what I was looking for (laughter). I don’t know biblical stuff; I get confused (laughter). Uh…but, one of the things that I did pay attention to is, you know, I look at things that have been successful in our city. One of the things that has been successful for the DTA has been the shop, or..and actually the Chamber of Commerce as well, is the shop local or the 350 programs, and I got to thinking, if…if we really believe that our social services could be better served by educating the public, and…and I really mean that. By having posters, having flyers, having information on the DTA’s web site, you know, because we, let’s face it, panhandlers are some of the most web literate people I know, and uh, and so it’s about where are…where are resources available. So, part of it is not to…I’m not a…I don’t want to be in the business of shutting people up, so much as I want to be in the business of helping them have better information, make decisions, and I know given, uh, a lot of things that were said tonight, and things you’ve been working on tonight, you like to…you like to have data to drive your decisions. As I said earlier, I feel in this particular case the data isn’t helping you here. It’s the anecdotal information that seems to be driving the decision. I think we would all feel better, uh, if this decision was based on fact rather than, uh, observation. So with that, again, I…I ask, I, like everyone else, I would love for you to change your minds and vote against, uh, this particular ordinance so that we don’t need a third reading, but if, you know, if…if you feel the need to have more people come visit you, I suppose we could do that! So, thanks so much!
Hayek: Thank you, Garry. Council?
Dickens: I could recuse myself, but I…I have a real hard time doing that. I…I’m downtown all the time. Some of you people come downtown occasionally. I’m there 330 days a year. I do get some Sundays off, um…I was, uh, I was…had an aggressive panhandler just come up to me last week. I was heading down to pick up my packet a week ago Thursday, and he would not back off. And finally I said, I’m on my way to the City Hall, if you want to follow me down, you’re more than welcome. So there is still some aggressive panhandling going on. Um, I see it all the time. I will recuse myself from voting on this, but I will not remain silent on it, because I live and breathe it every day and our customers, and non-customers, people that are just downtown, will come in our store to get away from some people, because they are still very aggressive. I would say overall it’s gotten a lot better. And I think it has, and those people sitting down, I know most of those people. I say ‘hi’ to them every day. I don’t have a problem with those. It’s still the aggressive, and they’re not…they’re not giving up. And, that’s the only reason…I will not vote on this, but I will not remain silent.
Dilkes: Let me just say one thing with respect to…to this, um…if I had thought that Mr. Dickens had a legally compelled conflict of interest I would have advised him as much. Um, I…I don’t. Um, clearly the decision to recuse himself though is his.
Wright: Terry, if I could just…step in. The aggressive panhandling already is illegal, um, what we’re talking about here is further restrictions, and that’s where I really start having a big problem with this ordinance. Um, for a bunch of reasons, uh, and I’ll probably rehash to a certain extent what I’ve said before, but we’re focusing first of all a group of people that’s essentially powerless. Uh, they have no economic clout of this community. They’re down on the street asking for money. That’s really not a fun way to make a living. I’ve talked with some of these folks. I know what kind of abuse they take. Uh, and the aggressive incident you spoke about is already illegal under our existing ordinance. Um, furthermore, I feel this is just a, yet one more whack against First Amendment rights to free speech. Panhandling is protected speech in the United States. Uh, I think the…unfortunate thing that we’re facing here…is that very frequently panhandlers are not well dressed. They don’t have good haircuts. They’re coats are dirty. They make us feel uncomfortable, and I think that’s what we’re really talking about here. It’s not a matter of safety downtown from the panhandlers. Uh, I…I said it the last time and I…I still agree with it this time, I find the…I’m sure the intentions behind this ordinance were good, but I think its overall affect is still mean-spirited and small-minded and the Council should be embarrassed that we’re even talking about it.
Hayek: I, um…I have legal training. I take First Amendment issues very seriously, um, our City Attorney’s office, which has…approved this, um, ordinance, uh, takes First Amendment issues very seriously, as well. In my estimation, um, this is both constitutional and reasonable. It allows solicitation to continue, uh, in the downtown area. Um, I am…I’m not interested in exceptions. I think that is a slippery slope. We cannot say that certain people can be within an area and others, uh, cannot as it relates to this ordinance. And that will impact toward the non-profits. Um, you will still be able to solicit, uh, in the designated areas within the entire city plaza, um, so based on that, I will continue to support this. But I…I appreciate the views of those who feel very strongly about this, and uh, I’m glad you showed up tonight, and I’m glad that the City Council will, uh, follow its tradition of…of making sure we have ample opportunity for public input on a very important issue.
Wilburn: The only piece that I would, uh, add, or highlight, is that um, as you had said, Mr. Mayor, it still allows, um, panhandling in that strip within the middle of the ped mall, so, but there is some reduction, um, and that piece that I added last time was that…aspect that we have in terms of balancing, um, balancing rights, and that’s between, um, the businesses and the individuals that have come forward, uh, with concerns, um, about aggressive panhandling to help try and provide some type of (mumbled) in terms of ease…um, ease of clarifying where…where it cannot occur in the pedestrian mall. Um, that’s the only piece that I would add.
Hayek: No further discussion?
Bailey: Well, the commons requires a balancing act and we’re fortunate that we still have a commons in downtown Iowa City. Many cities have turned their pedestrian plazas or the city plaza that is legally and technically called, they’ve turned them back into vehicular traffic. I was just reading today about, I think it was Sacramento, has gone back to vehicular traffic in their pedestrian plaza. Um, and what I’m seeing in our downtown, which concerns me, um, because I love our downtown, is a fragile economic environment right now. We are fortunate to have so many local businesses down there, and that balancing act between people who want customers coming in their business and feeling comfortable…I always feel comfortable downtown. I’ve never been downtown where I haven’t felt comfortable, but I also have, you know, parents in town who don’t feel comfortable coming downtown, and I understand their perspective. Some of it is, oh, people don’t look like us and they look a little different, and I get that, and I can, you know, say Mom, come on, but I don’t want them to feel unsafe, and I understand that important balancing act with this. There’s still an area that’s designated. It’s still balancing rights, and it’s balancing issues. I’m glad to hear from everybody tonight who’s concerned about our community, because that’s what it takes to build community, and I know that many of you think I’m wrong, but I am going to continue to support this, in support of our wonderful locally owned businesses downtown in this very challenging and difficult economic time.
Wilburn: And there is the education…I forgot there is the education component related to this, involving the parking meters, which I think everyone does support, and those resources will go to some of the, uh, non-profits that are working with, uh, providing support for some individuals, and uh, and I do agree with (mumbled) no exceptions.
Hayek: Anything further? Roll call, please. Item passes 4-1, Dickens abstaining.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Manhandlers or Panhandlers?

As the Iowa City Council will have one more vote on the extended panhandling ordinance tentatively on June 1st. Fair-minded people should ask: which is more dangerous, a panhandler with a sign or a city council that can't be swayed from a decision that they clearly do not have evidence to support the need of? The violations of the current aggressive panhandling ordinance has been numbered at zero--ZERO. This is governance of the worst sort: a solution seeking a problem.

Thankfully there are others in the Iowa City Community who share this concern and continue to organize around defeating the proposition.

If you are a resident of Iowa City or a visitor who has been on the Ped Mall, drop a note to the city council, if you share the concern that the city government is over-stepping it's bounds. Further, write a letter to the local papers and show up at the meeting. Let the government know that Iowa City is for everybody.

Editorial: Iowa City Peddling Business in the Ped Mall

I attended last night's City Council meeting and it brought out a new understanding of how Iowa City's "diverse" downtown commercial interests are ruling the roost in Iowa City. In discussing the second reading of a more stringent ordinance to limit panhandling on the Ped Mall, the majority of city council members pooh-poohed 1st amendment concerns in supporting the ordinance, the current version of which has yielded zero citations or arrests by Iowa City's Police Department. An ordinance which has resulted in council member and Ped Mall business owner, Terry Dickens in saying "things have gotten much better".

However, in the effort to continue aesthetically purifying the Ped Mall, the city council continued to support this measure to save "fragile businesses" in Iowa City, in the words of Regenia Bailey from people who are scary to their customers. And yet, DTA members also tout how safe downtown is and kid-friendly, as they did on a recent community program. Apparently taking the tack, the business of city government is business, the council voted 4 to 1 with Dickens "abstaining," Connie Champion going home sick, and Mike Wright reconfirming his vote in the negative.

In my call to make a more data driven decision, the council elected to vote with the DTA, which will not release the vote they took of their membership to push for additional restrictive measures on the public space or "commons" as David Smithers referred to them in his call for the council to reject this measure. This type of blind obedience would be par for the course several years ago, but with at least three self-described progressives on the council, it defies logic.

This defies logic in that the Ped Mall itself is a public space that has been developed as a for-profit center by the city in cooperation with business owners. By continually allowing businesses to sprawl out into the walkway area and permitting food carts, the overall effect is to limit the walking area. In so doing, the city and the businesses have, in part, been responsible for the environment they are now convinced needs to be changed.

Despite the efforts of several people, including US Senatorial candidate Tom Fiegan, the city council, members of ICCI, student organization members from the University of Iowa, the council chose to ignore the unwashed masses to dance with the ones who brung 'em. Oddly they were able to ignore the charge that other downtown businesses are equally challenged and that a likely outcome of this ordinance is to send panhandlers to other areas of the city where they are less likely to be hassled.

However all is not lost, the third and final vote will take place at the next scheduled formal council meeting which is June 1. This allows those who have been sitting on the sidelines to jump into the fray and contact their city representatives with their comments and to show up at the final vote to stand and be counted. By creating a solution in search of a problem, the city will likely get what they are saying they want to avoid--a downtown devoid of vibrancy.

Scattershooting About Johnson County Politics

So the two parties have had their conventions and (D) Janelle Rettig and (R) Lori Cardella are their parties' candidates. If there is any drama to unfold it would have to involve a brave soul gathering 250 signatures to be placed on the ballot to run a third person for the controversial seat. It would actually be a more compelling race if that would happen. Failing that, it will rely on the candidates to turnout their bases.

And what will happen come June? The seat that will be decided by special election will be up for grabs again. Is this an effort to turn out the base for the Senatorial and House primaries? I would hate to think that people would have ulterior motives--I'd be "shocked."

You never know who you'll run into at a pizza place. Mike O'Donnell may be leaving the Iowa City Council, but his longer term aspirations may involve being the next County Recorder. He was notably absent from the Democratic special county convention.

And what was the Iowa City Council thinking when they approved a 2% franchise fee acknowledging that they might be able to do without half of it? They have deferred action in the past, why not wait until they have more information? As it stands most of us would not feel the pinch of a 1% hike, but the University of Iowa and other tax-exempt entities will in April--unless the council brings it up after the new members are seated.

Question for Sheriff Pulkrabek and JC County Attorney Lyness--what, if anything, have you decided to do about John Bohnenkamp? You may recall that he disregarded a public safety officer's order last July (and his own wife's pleas) to clear out of the crime scene which may have contributed to the shooting death of John Deng. I seem to recall that there was a continuing investigation about this point that has not been reported.


And area State Legislators--why not look at taxing non-residential uses of condominiums for rental property? Clearly it is disadvantaging those communities like Iowa City that have large numbers of absentee landlords. $2 million dollars can help a city keep it's budget balanced without the residents taking it fully on the chin. Also, it probably is keeping apartments from being built which in less supply.

City Council Election: A Sleeper and A Squeaker

Today's Iowa City election netted the lowest turnout since 1985. The Iowa City precincts during September's school board election reported 4,394 voters at the polls, while the City Council election today saw 4,682 voters turn out. As expected Susan Mims and Terry Dickens won the at-large race with 75% and 70% of the vote over The University of Iowa students Dan Tallon and Jeff Shipley. Mark McCallum gave Connie Champion the closest race she has ever had in her four elections as Champion narrowly defeated McCallum by 172 votes.

Anti-Loitering Passes, Mims, Dickens, Shipley, Tallon Win Primary

The Iowa City Council passed a city-wide loitering ordinance and less than 4% of registered voters (1,872 to be precise) turned out for the city council primary. A great day for democracy in Johnson County. With elections costing at least $75,000, Iowa City residents, particularly those who complain about how taxes are spent, should take a look in the mirror.

By a vote of 6 to 1, the City Council has locked down "city sidewalks, streets, trails, bridge, or crossing or to congregate, stand, loaf or loiter in any hall, doorway, passage, or entrance of any public building, theater, hotel, eating house, lodging house, store, shop, or factory, or other like building so as to obstruct such place or hinder or prevent persons walking along or into or out of such place or attempting or desiring to do so." A violation can be proven "whether a person is actually hindered or prevented from passing." Good work city council, I expect law enforcement to be out in force on the Ped Mall looking for violators.

Primary Fever--Catch It

Iowa City City Council at-large candidates need your support. If you are eligible to vote, have the desire to brave the rain, and want to participate in a democaratic process, go vote. Also, the many poll workers who are working on their knitting, reading books, and/or chatting really would love your company.

Don't know where? This should help. You can vote all the way up to 9 pm. How good is that?

Don't know for whom to vote? Here is a link to the candidates info. Don't like what you see, you can always write in candidates that you think would do a good job. It is a democracy after all.

City Defers on Curfew, Votes for Loitering Ordinance

The City Council deferred on the decision to invoke a city-wide minor curfew when a coalition of community members stepped forward with a plan to work with family members on the Southeast members to reduce the trouble with youth that has been troubling neighbors there. By a vote of 5 to 2, the City council has put off the curfew pending the results from actions of a group to reach each family within the community to get their perspective of what needs to happen to address youth crime and violence in the area.

By a vote of 6 to 1, the City Council reaffirmed their support for a citywide loitering ordinance which they believe will be effective in dealing with groups that obstruct city byways.

Fair Hearing of Iowa City Ordinances

The City Council has two more readings of the controversial minor curfew and loitering ordinances. Below are links to both. While FAIR!, the group I am chair of, supports efforts to make Iowa City and Johnson County safe and vibrant, we also have concerns that the enforcement of these ordinances may run contrary to those goals. We fully support neighborhoods implementing Neighborhood Watch programs and community dialogues and think that the City may be using a hammer to accomplish what good communication could effectively solve. Please take a look at the ordinances and if you are able to contact City Council members between now and September 29th, it would be appreciated.

Curfew Ordinance:
http://www.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/file/cityClerk/ProposedNewJuvenileCurfew.pdf
This was approved on first reading by a vote of 4 - 3 (Correia, Wilburn, Bailey voting in the negative; O'Donnell, Champion, Hayek, and Wright voting in the affirmative).

Some points to consider:
* Curfew is implemented by age groups, but many teenagers do not carry proof of age.
* Other ordinances, including disturbing the peace are already on the books.
* Persons who are causing disturbances are aware they are violating existing laws, no assurance that this ordinance will change behaviors; has not been effective in other communities.
* Likely to escalate tension in neighborhood without other tools; e.g., mediation, community dialogue, social events
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/OLD+CURFEW+LAW+STRUCK+DOWN%3B+PALMDALE+HAS+NEW,+APPROVED+ORDINANCE+IN...-a083631565

If you aren't sure about who it will affect, see this small clip by one of the council members.
http://tinyclip.tv/292743df

Loitering Ordinance:
http://www.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/file/cityClerk/ProposedLoitering.pdf
This was approved on first reading by a vote of 6 - 1 (Correia voting in the negative; All others voting in the affirmative).

Some points to consider:
* Loitering ordinance applies to sidewalks, trails and can be enforced by the perception of "obstruction"--meaning if I believe you are obstructing my ability to get around you, you can be fined $50.
* Hard to enforce in that it relies on subjective judgment of police officer.
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsreleases/99mn012?opendocument
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/09/BAP817HBAI.DTL

Dealing with Trouble: When Neighbors Organize

Yesterday morning I attended a meeting at Fairmeadows Park organized by neighbors of a group called "Bringing It Together" (BIT) headed by Brandi Mastain in the Grant Wood school area who are concerned by recent outbreaks in crime in their area. Also in attendance were four Iowa City Council members: Mike Wright, Regina Bailey, Ross Wilburn, and Connie Champion; Acting City Manager, Dale Helling; Police Chief, Sam Hargadine and several of his officers; Neighborhood Services Coordinator, Marcia Bollinger in addition to 125 to 150 people mostly from the area.

The group, made up almost entirely of homeowners, were concerned about lawlessness in their part of the community and their frustration with the city's efforts to curb it. About 1/2 when asked by a show of hands if they had witnessed young people "wandering" until after midnight in mass and being disruptive held up their hands. About a 1/10 had experienced "severe issues" such as property damage or other disturbances. What was of most concern were 6 reported cases of gunfire in the last year and 4 within the last month, as well as an increase in breaking and entering charges (43) this year and that crime generally was higher in their area than in all of others of the city.

According to Mastain, the seriousness of what is happening in their area of town is a "bigger issue than college kids binge drinking downtown." Many of the crowd expressed a frusttration that their area was not receiving more help because for the majority of Iowa Citians, it doesn't affect them.

They asked the Police Chief Hargadine if a curfew could be put in place. The chief explained that he recommended a delinquent behavior ordinance instead because of the enforcement issues of a curfew. When asked if the city council was considering this, Hargadine said it had not been formally brought to the council which elicited groans from the crowd.

Neighbors did commend the police department for having foot patrols in the community, but were concerned by the lack of coverage between 11 pm and 3 am due to policing calls from downtown bars. The Chief agreed that the force was spread thin, but did say if his office receives calls, his officers respond as quickly as they can. He did say that he was 15 officers short of the staff he felt he needed. A member of the audience asked the chief if residents in the area could assist the officers on patrol and Chief Hargadine encouraged the questioner to contact his office.

The neighbors commented on the amount of section 8 and public housing in their area. They mentioned the influx of out-of-state people showing up as unfair to Iowa City residents and Iowans who should receive top priority. They also mentioned the perception that people are being told to come here that there is a "billboard in Chicago advertising to come here." Mastain asked the person to bring proof of this. She said that property values are being devalued by the crime and presence of section 8 housing.

When pressed by Carol Kula, a high school teacher and resident in the area to give the crowd something concrete to take away from the meeting so they wouldn't feel like thy had "wasted their time being there," Mastain encouraged people to join their group and to go before city council on Tuesday night with their concerns. A neighbor mentioned that they should introduce themselves to their neighbors so that they would be able to know who was causing trouble in their neighborhood. Jarrod Gatlin said, "We need to know. Who are these kids?"

The organizers stressed that the meeting was about public safety, not the race of the kids involved in the crime problem, but stressed it was time for the neighbors to "make them uncomfortable; not allow them to make us uncomfortable."

As there were more than three members of the city council present, the members were not allowed to comment on the crowds concerns, but individually, the council members did stay after the meeting to listen and ask questions of those present.

As an observer, it was interesting to note the lack of renters at the meeting. I did speak to Royce Ann Porter briefly who heads a group called Iowa City Community School District Concerned Parents Committee who told me that her group represents low-income residents and has more to say. I'll follow up on this. I noted on the survey that was given to participants of the meeting that the questions were not specific to the type of respondent, but wonder if by the nature of it, only half the story is being told.

I hope that the BIT group will seek out input from the folks who were so clearly not present--I'd guess they would have a better outcome if they brought everyone together--more BITE, as it were.

Other accounts from the Press-Citizen and Gazette

Bloodletting in Iowa City?

Iowa City Council unanimously agreed to fire city manager Michael Lombardo yesterday less than a year after they hired him. Whether he was deserving of firing or an unwilling pawn in a game between the city council members themselves is open to wide speculation at this point. The one truth is that the city is in the market for a new city manager at a time when stability is most needed. Fortunately assistant Dale Helling is on hand yet again to lend his years of experience as acting city manager.

With a difficult vote ahead pertaining to the local option sales tax, it is puzzling why the city council might choose this moment to remove the city manager. Was it a difference between city prioritization, personality conflict, or a need to remove public glare from a council that has had difficulties seeing eye to eye behind the scenes? In a story in the Press-Citizen, council members chose to say it was a personnel decision and that the public wouldn't hear why from them. As for Lombardo, he is quoted in the Gazette as saying "“I think it came down to a difference in philosophy and understanding roles and expectations.”

Lombardo was unceremoniously escorted out of City Hall yesterday by an Iowa City police officer and will receive six months severance.

Farmers Revolt, Council Backtracks

The City Council meeting in Iowa City was nothing if not potentially fireworks filled last night with residents concerned about the tax referendum, farmers and other vendors, homeowners, and others crowding Emma Harvat Hall.

Residents commented on the projects associated with the local option sales tax noting the need for cooperation between governments and the University of Iowa about what to do to prevent more flooding from the Iowa River, to consult hydrology experts, and to make the process open both before and after the vote.

Vendors from the farmer's market were out in force to protest what they perceived to be a behind the scenes deal to move the market outside the Chauncey Swann parking ramp. On March 3rd, a memo was released from the City's Parks & Recreation Dept. announcing six dates that the market would be held on downtown streets which, according to City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes was picked up by one of her legal staff who noted that the city ordinance for use of public streets would need to be modified. Wording was suggested and placed on the council agenda.

City Manager, Michael Lombardo, who had been meeting with a group that intended to meet with the vendors on April 9th and was on vacation when the item was placed on the agenda, was taken by surprise to discover this had been done. The City Council, after hearing the explanations from staff quickly voted down the proposed ordinance and encouraged the vendors to contact them about participating in the April 9th meeting.

In other actions, the council voted to hold off on voting for a proposed development project on Rohret Rd. pending discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission due to an organized effort of neighbors who believe that building as close to a wetlands area on the property in question will cause harm, in addition to leveling trees to make way for a relocation of Rohret Rd. The Council also voted 5-2 to reconsider their vote on an $80,000 public arts project they had previous approved, and therefore are contractually liable, and left it up to the City Attorney to meet with the artist to work through the legalities. They also agreed to broadcast meetings discussing city priorities for future budget funding.