East Grand Rapids vote means less restrictions on panhandling

By Madison Bennett | MLive

The East Grand Rapids City Commission has voted against a proposed amendment to a city ordinance on begging and soliciting that would have retained some of the city's own rules against soliciting.

Instead the City Commission appears ready to repeal the city's ordinance and have panhandling governed under less restrictive state law.

The move for less restrictions on panhandling was backed by some residents who attended the City Commission meeting on Monday, March 19.

"I think that ordinances like this serve to criminalize homelessness and that they reinforce stereotypes that we have about people who might ask us for something in a public space," resident Kathleen Underwood said.

East Grand Rapids first looked at the possible amendment in February due to a change in state legislation in 2017. That legislation, according to a memo from City Attorney John Huff, pre-empted all local panhandling ordinances in Michigan.

During the March 19 City Commission, five commissioners voted against the amendment and made a motion to direct Huff to draft a repeal of the city's current ordinance. Mayor Amna Seibold and First Ward Commissioner Chad Zagel voted in favor of the proposed amendment.

"I have never believed that we have a problem with solicitation or begging in the city of East Grand Rapids," Commissioner Claudine Duncan said.

Commissioner Brian Miller echoed Duncan's statement and said it addresses a problem that the city "does not have."

"I think it's a response to something that has never been a problem in our community other than once or twice," Miller said.

Mark Herald, East Grand Rapids Public Safety director, said from his recollection police have dealt with about two soliciting incidents in the past few years.

In addition to Huff, the city also worked with Terry Tobias, attorney at the local law firm Varnum LLP who acts as the city's prosecutor. Huff attended a City Commission meeting on Feb. 5 to present the amendment and answer questions from commissioners.

According to Tobias, the state enacted a statute that negates any current or future local ordinances that do not comply with the statute.

The statute allows for certain roadside solicitation, specifically pertaining to certain charitable organizations alongside the roadway. Charitable organizations are described as qualifying non-profits and tax-exempt veterans' organizations.

With that, the statute also includes requirements on certain safety clothing, proof of insurance and a limitation on the types of organizations deemed to be charities. Lastly, it designated violations to the statue as civil infractions.

The city's begging and soliciting ordinance currently bans any type on public roadways and in other designated places, including near ATM's, public restrooms and public transportation. The change in state legislature has now made portions of that ordinance unenforceable, according to Huff.

The main changes in the proposed amendment to the city's code of ordinances were lifting the ban, allowing certain charitable roadside solicitation and deeming any violation a civil infraction.

In addition to opposition from some commissioners, several residents came out to voice their concern about the amendment.

Resident Matt Feyen said in the seven years he's lived in the city, he had never seen a panhandler or homeless person. "It just doesn't seem to be a good use of government," he said.

Others like Miriam Aukerman, a resident and an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the amendment sends a message to people that "they're not wanted here."

"That is precisely why I, as a citizen of East Grand Rapids, don't want to see that happen because that's not the message that is embodied in our core values, my core values and I hope your core values as a community," Aukerman said.

Both Seibold and Zagel said they saw the amendment as a safety precaution to keep soliciting and begging away from places that are not safe.

Seibold added that many people were "projecting" the ideas of keeping poor people and homeless out of the city and discrimination onto the amendment.

"I see this ordinance as setting down some framework for safety for our citizens and our visitors to the city," Seibold said.

This post originally appeared on MLive.com March 21, 2018.