Editorial: Novato safety rules about panhandling in the road make sense
In moving forward toward enacting a new local law that would ban some roadside panhandling, Novato city leaders are emphasizing the ordinance is a matter of public safety for motorists and pedestrians.
But the City Council’s tentative approval of the law has already drawn criticism from some members of the city’s Housing and Homeless Committee, among them an attorney from Legal Aid of Marin who challenged the measure “targets” unhoused people, creating another hurdle for them to get housing.
There was little discussion among council members as they voted to give tentative approval to the new law, which would ban panhandlers from standing on narrow street medians seeking handouts.
City staff has presented the law as an “anti-loitering” measure that would ban pedestrians from standing on medians less than 4 feet wide for more than two traffic signal cycles or three minutes if there are no signals.
These sound like common-sense safety measures. The understandable concern is that a tragic accident could be a stumble away or be the result of a motorist not being able to see a red light.
City staff said the proposal is in response to complaints received by City Hall. Mayor Susan Wernick is a strong supporter of the ordinance, calling panhandlers standing on narrow medians “so dangerous.”
The stated goal of the law is to promote safety for pedestrians, whether they are panhandlers or people holding political or marketing signs, and motorists.
The city is hoping that the law will find voluntary compliance. Writing citations to people who likely can’t afford to pay them seems to be a nonstarter.
In addition, it is not a citywide ban on panhandling and city staff stress there are other spots people can stand to panhandle, or even hold up campaign signs.
Jason Sarris, a member of the city’s homeless committee and chair of the Novato chapter of the California Homeless Union said he would like to see more evidence that panhandlers are creating a safety problem.
Before it comes back to the council for final approval, city staff should provide examples that it is a safety problem, both for panhandlers and city staff’s contention that motorists whose view of signs and signals could be blocked.
Other cities, San Rafael among them, have passed similar safety laws, city staff stressed.
Normally, you don’t need a record of accidents to address a potential safety problem that’s fairly obvious.
While restrictions on panhandlers have been the targets of court challenges in other parts of the country, city staff say the safety of pedestrians and panhandlers is the real goal of the proposed law, not a measure that could be construed as violating people’s free speech or public access rights.
At the front end of approving this law, the city needs to respond to critics, making it clear that the anti-loitering law is a safety measure not a societal one.