Springfield repeals panhandling ordinance in 8-1 vote

A lone council member's argument wasn't enough to sway her colleagues from repealing Springfield's aggressive solicitation ordinance.

"I still think we should fight the panhandling ordinance — getting rid of it," Councilwoman Kristi Fulnecky said. "This deals with aggressive panhandling. This is in your face aggressive."

She said if the city repeals the law, citizens are only protected by assault and peace disturbance laws, which she does not believe would be effective.

Other council members disagreed with her and repealed the law 8-1.

A federal lawsuit filed in early December effectively suspended any restrictions on panhandling in Springfield. On Dec. 16, a judge approved a preliminary injunction that prohibits the city from enforcing the law.

The moratorium extended to the prosecution of panhandling tickets already in the system.

But Fulnecky said she thinks the city has a route to fight for the law.

"The Supreme Court didn't issue an opinion on this," she said. "I think you'd have a strong case going through the circuit and going to the Supreme Court, asking them to hear your case."

City Attorney Dan Wichmer said he disagreed that the Supreme Court hadn't ruled.

He said the court had issued a memo telling a Massachusetts trial court to review a panhandling ordinance based on a different Supreme Court ruling dealing with the first amendment. The panhandling law in question was identical to Springfield's, Wichmer said.

He explained that the Supreme Court said it was a content-based restriction. Basically, people only think solicitation is aggressive when it's considered "begging."

"If someone comes up and asks me for money for Red Cross or March of Dimes, people don't feel threatened," he said, adding that several courts have thrown out solicitation laws.

"I don't know how much more emphatically the case could be made, by all the courts that have addressed it, that no aggressive solicitation ordinance will stand up," Wichmer said.

The law, which built on earlier panhandling restrictions in City Code, was drafted at the request of the Park Central Square Task Force, a group that included downtown business owners as well as other stakeholders.

The city previously had outlawed "aggressive panhandling" — such as repeatedly asking a person for money despite being rebuffed, or making physical contact while soliciting — anywhere in the city. The new ordinance prohibited verbal requests for money within five feet of a street or sidewalk or within 20 feet of a doorway or sidewalk cafe.

Other council members supported the repeal, mostly because they believed case law made it clear.

"We took an oath to support the constitution," Councilman Ken McClure said. "And that means support it when we agree with it and when we disagree with it."

Councilman Craig Hosmer agreed with McClure, and said he believed laws against assault and peace disturbance would protect the city in the most serious cases.

He also said the city currently can't jail aggressive panhandlers because of an ongoing legal battle with the county over the jail.

Fulnecky said she disagreed with that statement.

"Just because we don't have a jail now doesn't mean we need to get rid of our laws," she said.