Experienced panhandlers expressed a slightly different set of concerns.

Manuel said he is worried that the ordinance will lead to higher crime rates. He explained that if panhandlers are restricted from aggressively soliciting money, they may turn to other means, which could include purse-snatching or pick-pocketing.

Reasonable Penalties?

While both Clayger and Manuel called the $50 fine for a first offense "fair," O'Connor felt that the fine was "too high."

Many councillors opposing the ordinance also found the fines too high.

"How are we going to impose a $50 fine on somebody who's out collecting quarters on the street?" Councillor Daniel F. Conley asked, according to The Globe.

"I don't think most homeless people would have the 50 [dollars]; they would have to go out and panhandle for it," the BESC source said.

Ellis agreed that "the penalties are quite substantial," but he added that "if they can't pay, there's the option of community service."

"The goal is not to put people in jail or pay $50 fines; it's that they stop," said Boston City Councillor Thomas M. Keane Jr., in The Globe. Keane voted in favor of the ordinance.

Cambridge Consequences

Few expect the new Boston ordinance to have short-term effects upon the City of Cambridge.

Donovan said that he doesn't expect there will be an influx of panhandlers into Cambridge from Boston, because pan-handlers are rooted geographically, with support systems and friends in their areas.

Cambridge does not have solicitation restrictions, according to Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury.

Cambridge has a loitering ordinance, Drury said, but no ordinances restricting panhandling.

"There has not been, in my memory, much discussion of [panhandling restrictions] at the city council level," she said.