ACTION REQUESTED:
Title
Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel with a Request to RECEIVE & FILE a REPORT Regarding the Status of the LAW for PANHANDLING and SOLICITATION.
Body
BACKGROUND:
Legal Background:
On October 7, 2003 the City adopted Ordinance No. 15537 amending its regulation of panhandling. Ordinance No. 15537 is attached for review. It generally defined panhandling as "any solicitation made in person upon any street, public way, public place or park in the city, in which a person requests an immediate donation of money or other gratuity from another person and includes but is not limited to seeking donations." It did not include the act of passively standing with a sign. It also excluded the performance of music, singing or street performance. It defined aggressive panhandling as someone who is panhandling and touches another person, while in line waiting to be admitted to a business, blocking the path of another person or blocking an entrance to a building, following a person, using profane or abusive language or panhandling in a group of two or more persons. Panhandling was prohibited after sunset and before sunrise and at certain locations in the city including bus stops, in a sidewalk caf? or within 20' of an ATM machine.
In 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court demanded closer examination of laws that regulate speech based on its content in Reed v. Gilbert. 576 U.S. 155 (2015). Clyde Reed, pastor of Good News Community Church (Good News), rented space at an elementary school in Gilbert, Arizona, and placed about 17 signs in the area announcing the time and location of Good News' services. Gilbert had an ordinance that restricted the size, number, duration, and location of certain types of signs, including temporary directional ones, to prevent improper signage. After Good News received an advisory notice from Gilbert that it violated the Sign Code, Good News sued Gilbert and claimed that the Sign Code violated the Free ...
Click here for full text