Limiting panhandling aids homeless

  Matthew Knee Send your comments to Knee
at mknee@media.ucla.edu.
Click
Here
for more articles by Matthew Knee

Westwood has a serious homeless problem. The problem is not that
there are homeless people, but that they are harassing UCLA
students and Westwood residents.

The short-term solution to this issue is simple: the only way to
make Westwood safe is to take full advantage of the laws and
resources already in place to prevent illegal panhandling activity.
But the long term solution involves addressing the underlying
causes of aggressive panhandling by reforming the support systems
provided to the poor.

Aggressive panhandling is already illegal, but students rarely
complain to the police. Laws passed within the last couple of years
by the Los Angeles City Council draw distinctions between
legitimate panhandling and dangerous public nuisances. For example,
it is illegal for a panhandler to do anything that would cause a
reasonable person to feel threatened, or to use intimidation as a
means of receiving alms. Panhandlers cannot touch you (or your
vehicle) without your consent, use profane, offensive or abusive
language, or make violent or threatening gestures.

If you deny a panhandler’s request, it is illegal for the
person to persistently follow or approach you. If you feel that the
only way to get a panhandler to go away is to give him money, the
person is breaking the law. Call the police ““ by reporting
these crimes, repeat offenders are more easily identified.

Calling the police may also help get panhandlers who are
mentally ill or need drug or alcohol treatment the necessary
medical and state attention ““ this benefits both the homeless
person and the community.

The Los Angeles Municipal Code puts limits on panhandlers’
areas of operation. They cannot solicit donations within 15 feet of
an ATM, check-cashing business, bank, savings and loan, credit
union or in a parking lot at night or on public transportation.
These laws are intended to provide security to those who are either
laden with cash, vulnerable or unable to escape unwelcome
solicitors.

Now it’s not that I lack sympathy for the poor.
Homelessness is a serious problem with complex causes, not the
least of which include inadequate state-sponsored mental health
care, drug and alcohol addiction and a social welfare system not
conducive to promoting the self-sufficiency of the poor.

Government benefits, for example, don’t often provide an
incentive for panhandlers and other poor people to find jobs
““ instead, they promote a pattern of dependency that can lead
a person to relapse into panhandling.

A 1995 Cato institute study found that a single mother with two
children receives between $11,500 and $36,000 in benefits a year
depending on the state, usually more than the starting salary of a
secretary, and in several states, higher than the average starting
salary of a computer programmer.

Since people can collect these types of benefits from the
government with no qualms, they also develop a relaxed attitude
toward panhandling ““ when the government benefits stop coming
in, they start panhandling again.

The ideals of self-sufficiency and capitalistic meritocracy that
frown upon handouts and highly value gainful employment and hard
work are in steep decline.

Since the liberal revolution of the late ’60s ““
where, for example, the number of families eligible for Aid to
Families with Dependent Children who accepted benefits jumped from
63 percent in 1967 to 91 percent in the next three years ““ it
seems people find little stigma in taking unearned money from
strangers.

Perhaps government support of this attitude develops into a
sense of entitlement. From the sense of entitlement could then come
anger at those who deny them their due, and from this anger can
result the aggressiveness many panhandlers display.

This seems to be worse in Los Angeles than in many parts of the
country. In other cities that I have been to, many homeless people
usually try to do something creative when asking for money.

There is a clear moral distinction to be drawn between those who
simply ask for money and those who, while they cannot find work,
still feel the need to be productive in order to receive
income.

Reforming the welfare state in order to encourage job training
is a long term solution to panhandling that merits a certain degree
of consideration.

Or, perhaps government social programs should be cut, along with
upper-bracket tax rates, in order to produce increased donations to
the far more efficient private charities. This tactic resulted in
charitable donations increasing by about 30 percent in the
1980s.

Doing this will make the people beholden to philanthropic
individuals and organizations ““ the Salvation Army, for
example, demands commitments of self-improvement in return for
charity ““ and therefore lead them to view charity as a gift
of temporary aid, rather than an excuse to postpone
self-improvement.

But social analysis aside, the problem and the short-term
solution remain the same.

Students and members of the Westwood community must take action,
and if we all fulfill our civic duty, then we can make Westwood a
safer, more comfortable place for everyone.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *