ATTACHMENT 3

Except of Summary Minutes of Business Meeting of June 10, 2002

Item 8 – Amendment to Solicitation Ordinances

Police Chief Gregg Jarvies said there were 2 ordinances before the Council:

· Adoption of Ordinance A would amend Chapter 13 of the Town Code of Ordinances that regulates door-to-door peddlers and solicitors.

· Adoption of Ordinances B would Amend Section 11:170 of the Town Code of Ordinances that regulates begging, panhandling and soliciting.

Chief Jarvies noted the following:

· Solicitors of door-to-door currently requires a permit.

· Non-commercial solicitation does not require a permit.

· Changes would be that all door-to-door solicitors would require a permit, valid for 30 days, and no $15 fee would be charged, and prohibited at nights. Religious solicitors would be exempt.

· Changes to begging, panhandling and soliciting would be requirements to file a free permit, none at night, prohibited from medians and shoulders. 

Chief Jarvies said these suggested changes were in response to citizens’ complaints, and continue to increase.  He said the changes proposed were in many towns and cities throughout North Carolina.  Chief Jarvies indicated that the Manager recommended adoption of both Ordinance A and B.

Ruby Sinreich said that Chapel Hill had long held the reputation as being liberal, but it was beginning to look like a bastion of sterility and authoritarianism.  She said the Town should be trying to help people.  Ms. Sinreich noted that there already were local and State laws against aggressive panhandling, adding she had never felt fear for her safety.

Jim Gray urged the Council to pass the proposed two ordinances, noting it was a quality-of-life issue.  He said controls such as this had improved the quality of life in New York City.  Mr. Gray stated it was a safety issue, and that the proposed  regulation was reasonable.

Scott Maitland said the proposed regulations were lawful, and he had had numerous unsafe and unpleasant contacts with people panhandling both at home and at work on Franklin Street.  He said the ACLU was subject to regulations.  Mr. Maitland said many people won’t come to the downtown because of the panhandling, especially at night.

Chris Moran, of the Interfaith Council for Social Service and other organizations whose goals were to eliminate homelessness, said he was concerned about the interpretations which could evolve from the ordinance.  He read a statement regarding homelessness from The Corporation for Public Housing.  Mr. Moran challenged the Council to partner with his organizations not to talk about panhandling regulations, but to talk about how each can end chronic homelessness, adding the Council should collect further data about homelessness to examine the problem.

Edmund Wise asked that the Council limit panhandling in any way that was effective and legal. He said most of them solicited for their alcoholic needs.  Mr. Wise said it was not a First Amendment problem to limit the activities of a group of minor terrorists.  He said although he considered himself a liberal, there was a limit to which a liberal could or should tolerate.

Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, brought the Chamber’s support for the ordinances, which addressed the concerns of many of the businesses in the community.

Marc Dorosin, President of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro ACLU, said the ordinance as proposed was a violation of the First Amendment.  He said it was a matter of solicitation for money.  Mr. Dorosin said the Town had an anti-aggressive panhandling ordinance on its books which was not being enforced.  He said he had no fear for his safety when refusing to give panhandlers money. Mr. Dorosin said the proposed ordinance was designed for the purpose of arresting people.

Robert Humphreys of the Downtown Commission said the Downtown Commission supported the changes to the ordinances, noting this change was a result of complaints from citizens.  He encouraged the Council to adopt the changes to the ordinances.

Council Member Bateman asked why, if there was an aggressive panhandling ordinance on the books, a cumbersome process should be put in place which would make things more complex. Chief Jarvies responded that, if the officer does not see the panhandling, he cannot enforce the ordinance, unless a citizen is willing to take out a warrant and go through the court process.

Council Member Bateman said if the Town did not want panhandling it should simply ban panhandling.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why the 9 or 10 people causing the problem could not be deterred, rather than creating a broad, sweeping regulation.  Chief Jarvies responded that there was a problem of more than 9 or 10, adding that there was a problem of solicitations at night at homes, in addition to downtown.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said there was a distinction with people going door-to-door and panhandling, and he asked why the two specific ordinances were necessary.  Chief Jarvies said there were several different kinds of solicitations.  He said all would be treated equally, fairly, and consistently.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED TO DEFER THE ISSUE AND CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO GET CITIZEN COMMENTS.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-2, WITH MAYOR FOY, COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, STROM, VERKERK, WARD AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN AND KLEINSCHMIDT VOTING NAY.

Council Member Strom said he would like more information on the issue of soliciting and why the existing ordinances could not be enforced.  He stated he wanted that information before the Public Hearing.

Mayor Foy suggested that all the Council Members should submit to the Manager their comments, questions, and suggestions prior to the public hearing.