Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
02.29.2008 11:51 am

Conway, prop in hand, fights panhandling bill

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

Before this morning’s Board of Aldermen meeting, Stephen Conway announced - to no one in particular - that he was preparing to put on a show at today’s session.

Conway, one of City Hall’s great debaters, did not disappoint.

The Eighth Ward alderman put his oratory skills to work delivering a populist soliloquy against an anti-panhandling bill pushed by Alderman Lyda Krewson, who represents the Central West End.

“This bill is poorly written - it won’t pass muster,” said Conway, an attorney.

Conway examined the bill with a legal microscopic, questioning whether the provisions would prevent a blind woman from asking for help crossing the street, or whether asking a stranger to use their cell phone would meet the definition of panhandling.

“Um, maybe,” Krewson conceded.

Then Conway motioned toward the homeless individuals in the gallery and brought out a prop - a surgical mask.

“What we are asking them to do,” Conway said, pulling the mask over his face, “is be silent. Don’t talk to us.”

After close to an hour of procedural wrangling, Conway’s push to send the bill back to committee failed, but not without a parting shot from veteran lawmaker Fred Wessels.

“I would remind the alderman from the Eighth Ward that alderman get paid on a biweekly basis - not by the word,” Wessels said. “While I like to listen to him, there should be a limit.”

Stephen Conwat

Conway: Crack down on panhandling raises his ire

2 comments

Comments are closed.

Alderman Krewson’s law should just make panhandlers back off when someone says no.

http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2008/02/alderman-lyda-krewsons-panhandling-law.html

— Bill Hannegan
10:20 pm February 29th, 2008

A young man once asked me to use my cell phone when I was riding the Metrolink a few years ago. When I said no, he told me he had a gun. So yes, Mr. Conway, asking to use a cell phone could also be a problem.

As far as controlling panhandling in the city is concerned, I don’t understand why they don’t just treat panhandling as what it is: commerce. I have a business in the county, but if I set foot in the city, I am required to get a city business license, and pay the earnings tax on any income earned in the city. Failure to do so is a prosecutable offense. In fact, if you stop doing business in the city, you must notify both the collector of revenue and the license collector’s office in writing, or you will receive a summons to court the next year. Failure to respond results in a warrant for your arrest. Panhandlers ought to be treated the same way. Any time the cops see somebody panhandling, they should demand to see their business license. If they don’t have one, they should be arrested.

Those of you who believe this is a free speech issue are sadly misguided. It is no more a restriction on free speech than requiring an attorney to obtain a business license before he can speak to his clients. Courts have ruled that commercial speech does not share the same protections as non-commercial speech, and that the mere fact that somebody is speaking does not mean that everything which is done is protected by the first amendment.

— Nick Kasoff
5:29 pm March 2nd, 2008