A recent Boston City Council ordinance that prohibits so-called "aggressive" panhandling has garnered a mixed reaction among homeless and homeless advocates on both sides of the Charles River.

The ordinance, which the council approved with an 8-5 vote on Dec. 17, went into effect when it was signed by Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino on Dec. 29.

The ordinance defines aggressive solicitation as "approaching or following pedestrians, repetitive soliciting despite refusals, threatening or intimidating behavior, unwanted physical contact or the intentional blocking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic."

Furthermore, the ordinance restricts any solicitation within ten feet of any ATMs or bank entrances or exits, on the grounds that solicitations in these areas are "especially troublesome because of the enhanced fear of crime in those confined environments."

Penalties for violation of the ordinance include a $50 fine for the first offense and a $100 fine for subsequent offenses, or court-determined community service hours.

"Boston was one of the remaining few [cities without panhandling restrictions]," said Leslie Sarofeen, the assistant director of the Mass. Housing and Shelter Alliance.

Sarofeen explained that the new Boston ordinance was "part of a cross-country trend."

Aggressive Solicitation

According to some panhandlers in Boston and Cambridge, the two activities prohibited by the ordinance--aggressive solicitation and solicitation outside of an ATM--can be very lucrative methods.

"On a cold day, aggression may be necessary," said Harvard Square panhandler Ricardo W. Clayger, "but it's all in how an individual presents themselves."

"Sometimes you've got to be aggressive, but not violent," said Boston panhandler Jim P. O'Connor.

O'Connor also said that panhandling near banks has its perks.

"Outside a bank, people know they have money and you get more money sometimes," he said.

Neil J. Donovan, the director of community programs at Jamaica Plain's Shattuck Shelter, said he feels that most panhandlers already avoid aggressive solicitation.

"The passive request for money is probably the norm, and more aggressive panhandling is something that you don't find everyday," Donovan said. "The individuals that are engaged in that are probably individuals that have issues they have to deal with."

But other advocates of the homeless feel that aggressive panhandling has gotten out of hand.

"I think aggressiveness is a valid concern," said Fred M. Ellis, the office manager at Spare Change News, a weekly newspaper run by the Homeless Empowerment Project.

"There's no problem in panhandling as such, but there is a problem with being super-aggressive in trying to get money," he said.

Joseph Manuel, a Spare Change vendor, also felt aggressive solicitation was unnecessary.

"I've been homeless and I know what it feels like--you don't got no job, you don't got no money," Manuel said.

"You should get fined for being aggressive about it," he said, "but you should be able to ask for money if you want."

"It ain't what you do, it's how you do it. When someone says no [to a solicitation], you don't force it," he said.

An employee at the Boston Emergency Shelter Commission (BESC), who asked not to be named, agreed aggressiveness was a problem but offered an explanation for the increase in aggressive pan-handling.

"If [panhandling has] gotten out of hand, it's because the demise of general relief has forced those with no other income to do it," the source said.

Problems with the Ordinance

Boston city councillors debated for more than 90 minutes before passing the panhandling ordinance, according to The Boston Globe.

Legislators and those active in the homeless community expressed concern over the effectiveness of the ordinance, the constitutionality of the ordinance and the possibility that police might over-extend their power.

"The police have a lot of power as it is," said the BESC source. "[Now], the police will have as much power as they want to have over the homeless--it's up to the individual [police officers]."

Although the ordinance explains that it is not intended to infringe upon any constitutional rights, some, like Donovan, are not convinced.

"I believe it's unconstitutional," he said. "It targets a group of individuals that don't need to be negatively targeted, and it's not solving the problem; it's addressing the problem in a rather misdirected way."

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.

Yet Ellis said he "wouldn't be surprised to see [an ordinance] in Cambridge now that one has been passed in Boston."

Clayger worried the ordinance could bring more panhandlers to Cambridge, and there's already a very heavy load on the people working here."

But many argued that very few people are actually aware of the ordinance.

"As far as I have experienced through our members, there's been little or no reaction to the ordinance," Ellis said.

"In large measure, [the homeless community] is not aware of the ordinance," said Sarofeen.

Donovan said he "can't see that [the ordinance is] very public."

On the streets, neither Clayger nor O'Connor had heard about the ordinance, while Manuel said he had heard about it through discussion at the Spare Change office.

The Future of the Ordinance

Despite all the concerns, few expect the ordinance to have widespread effects.

"I think it will have little to no effect," Donovan said.

"It will provide law enforcement with one other tool, but it will not provide homeless individuals with anything other than one more thing to be fearful of," he said.

"Those who are aggressive are still going to take their risks and do whatever is necessary in order to get the money they need to survive," said the BESC employee.

"They won't stop because of the restrictions; they'll probably just go to less-policed areas," the employee said. "I don't think it will have that great of an effect."

Clayger felt the ordinance would make the panhandling trade more fair because "when people are aggressive, they're usually very drunk or very large," he said.

Ellis predicted the ordinance would simply "reduce aggressiveness and control the people hanging around ATMs," he said.

Donovan does not foresee further restrictions on solicitation coming from the Boston City Council.

"I don't believe that it's a constitutional ordinance to begin with, so I don't think they'll be able to build upon it," he said.