MORGANTOWN — It doesn’t outlaw panhandling, they noted.
Or curtail speech.
It doesn’t criminalize poverty or homelessness.
It addresses a specific safety issue — people loitering in the road.
After making these points in turn on Wednesday, members of the Monongalia County Commission voted unanimously to adopt the Ordinance Regulating Pedestrian and Vehicle Safety.
As previously reported, the ordinance includes a number of prohibitions for both pedestrians within a right-of-way and vehicle passengers that would make it illegal activity for pedestrians to stand, sit or physically remain within a roadway for any reason apart from crossing the road. It also makes it illegal for both pedestrians and vehicle passengers to interact and pass or exchange items.
The law replaces the county’s Ordinance Regulating Soliciting/Panhandling, which has been on the books since August 2010. That law made it unlawful for anyone to solicit/panhandle in or along a roadway without written authorization from the sheriff’s department.
The road to Wednesday’s vote began in earnest on May 25, when Commission President Tom Bloom convened a meeting of county and municipal officials and law enforcement personnel to discuss the possibility of a countywide law addressing the growing issue of individuals utilizing medians to ask motorists for money.
By late June it was clear that in order to pass muster constitutionally, any resulting law should avoid targeting specific activity or speech, and instead focus on where it’s being conducted.
“Regardless of the perception, or even the reality of how the ordinance was born, it’s completely morphed into something that doesn’t attack panhandling or outlaw panhandling,” Commissioner Jeff Arnett said.
“There’s nothing in here that criminalizes homelessness or outlaws panhandling. It’s just when you’ve got a situation where there’s four or five lanes of traffic and you’ve got an individual sitting in the middle of the road, it creates a safety hazard … A lot of the opposition has generalized it into something that it’s actually not.”
Arnett’s comments struck directly at much of the pushback against the law. Critics have said regardless of whether the law includes the word “panhandling” it was created to criminalize that protected speech and would have the unintended consequences of punishing the poor and, potentially, getting the county sued.
The commission received a flurry of emails opposing the law starting about 30 minutes prior to Wednesday’s meeting. Much of what’s included in those messages echoes those points.
Lindsey Jacobs, an attorney with Mountain State Justice, spoke about the proposed law during an Aug. 16 public hearing. She was among those to reach out via email.
“First, the ban — even in its current, rebranded form, is unconstitutional and will absolutely draw a legal challenge. I prefer my tax dollars be spent on initiatives that actually address homelessness, poverty, and safety – not lawsuits defending clear First Amendment violations,” Jacobs wrote, later adding, “… there are better, proven ways to address the challenges of homelessness and poverty in our community.”
Commissioner Sean Sikora addressed that point, noting the commission is an active participant in local efforts to combat homelessness, poverty, addiction and various other societal issues, providing some $1.4 million annually to a list of social services and nonprofits.
“There’s a lot of talk that’s made about homelessness and people who need help. You couldn’t live in a more progressive county in regards of all we do to help people that need a hand up,” Sikora said. “So, we are attacking the problem at its root cause. This ordinance is to address safety.”
The new law will only be in effect in the county. Unless municipalities choose to take it up, existing municipal laws will remain in effect in those jurisdictions.
Penalties include a warning for a first offense and a fine up to $100 for each subsequent offense.
Asked if he was concerned about potential litigation, Bloom said it’s out of the commission’s hands.
“Unfortunately, we can be sued for anything. I believe, after receiving several phone calls from some national groups who after reviewing it, were like, ‘Oh, we didn’t realize what your ordinance was actually doing,’ that they felt comfortable. I just got that phone call yesterday,” Bloom said, declining to disclose what group or groups he was referring to.
“This ordinance morphed out of what was happening in the streets and panhandling. We realized we cannot legislate panhandling, but we can make the streets safe for pedestrians and cars. That’s all this does,” he said. “It’s a safety issue.”
