I am in agreement with Mr. Hall.
The law would be more simple if it just said where it was now legal to panhandle. Very simple…. where do the members of the oh so too, too city council would just tell us where they and their too too friends do not go.

Maybe these people should put their effort into trying to get a job at one of the many call centers instead of mooching off the system and counting on the people who work for a living to support them

Clem to you not think all those people working at call centers aren’t mooching off the system. Most are paid around $8.00 a hr with no benefits.

foe pa, you are right on. Been there and seen the deeper problems this causes. For once I agree with the city councils vote…Whew, once in 10 years…Wow.

Support our local charitable organizations not only with money but your time and it will benefit you and them.

I was also opposed to it, from what I understood or actually what I DID NOT UNDERSTAND….
Here is TJ THOMSON’s Facebook post concerning his vote…. makes a lot more sense to me… Especially the review in a year part….

Why I voted in favor of the Boise Solicitation Ordinance:

Make no doubt about it – I was deeply moved by the open, well-attended public hearing we had on this subject a few short weeks ago and, as a result, the Mayor & Council made major changes to the ordinance. There is a lot of misinformation ‘out there’ about this ordinance. It actually modified what is presently “on the books” by de-criminalizing aggressive panhandling from a misdemeanor down to an infraction, which I feel was a good move.

The focus here was not on where one can ‘sit or lie’ in public. That was done away with. The focus was on aggressive manners used to solicit from the public, on aggressive tactics used – something no person should be subject to. It focuses on the methods used – not the act of soliciting. I believe aggressive methods are rare and not representative of our homeless population. And because it is rare, enforcement of these aspects applying to aggressive manners will rarely even be utilized, in my opinion. But in cases where aggressive tactics are used – this simply places parameters around it, assuring a safe, vibrant city for everyone. Let me be very clear – soliciting in public areas is and will remain permitted. This places limits on aggressive methods used in public areas. Individuals are still free to make ‘the ask’ – just as they do today – but limits aggressively perusing someone after they have received a negative response.

Rather than make an ordinance too broad for use, this ordinance provided narrow context for ease of application. Limiting solicitation in other limited areas is based primarily on safety – an automated teller machine makes sense. Preventing blocking of an exit makes sense, in terms of safety. Or when someone is within a moving vehicle or within a roadway. Soliciting for donations is and will remain legal – the focus is on the methods used. Not limiting free speech, not limiting street performers. I am a huge fan of street performers and, from start to finish, have publicly stated that we must protect street performers – they add to the wonderful vibe of our city, add additional character. We will protect free speech and street performers in Boise.

This ordinance took a middle-road from where we were before the public hearing.

We also added a mandatory 12-month review of the ordinance. We will reassess its impacts one year from now, to determine if it had any unintended consequences and be sure to make any necessary changes. My focus is and will remain on assisting our less fortunate – to get them on a pathway to self-sufficiency.

This ordinance should not overshadow how much we are committed to assisting the homeless in Boise. We invest thousands into rent concessions to assist folks seeking assistance – places like Giraffe Laugh, Life’s Kitchen, and Jesse Tree. We maintain an extensive amount of rental units, many of which go directly to assisting our most chronic homeless. We provide rent vouchers to those most in need, fund families involved in the CATCH Program, we seek federal grants to obtain medical services, childcare scholarships, domestic violence services, and homeless prevention; we provide motel vouchers during the coldest months if shelter space is not available; winter day shelter for families; and assist through the Allumbaugh House. Well over a million dollars goes towards these activities each year. We have a 10-year plan to reduce chronic homelessness and I give you my guarantee that we will continue to find ways to assist our less fortunate enter the pathway to self-sufficiency. That is my promise to you. I have done just that for four years, as detailed in the ways we have strived to have a positive impact above, and you can count on it to continue going forward. We have continued work to do to assist our less fortunate neighbors, and I will do everything I can to help.

Constitutional rights? I guess there were beggars in the cities in the 1770s when the Constitution was dreamed up, but I doubt there was anything like the modern day problems faced by Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego and all the other big cities.

Breeds discontent? I guess you don’t live downtown because there is already discontent. Lots of it, from homeowners and business owners, but it’s rarely spoken in public because few want to be publicly seen as a hater. Thanks guardian for continuing to allow anonymous commenting unlike some local discussion forums.

I say good for Boise. Look at what Portland and Seattle are going through now because they took the lenient track early on and now they’re paying the price. And a local crackdown is all the more important with Seattle and Portland’s crackdown because you know, like water and electricity, many of the homeless will take the path of least resistance. Straight to Boise.

….and the final point. All it takes to change a pro panhandler to an anti panhandler is a transient standing in front of THEIR house or business for weeks on end. Seen it happen. Amazinghow quickly a bleeding heart stops bleeding when it becomes personal.

Quoting Thomson:

… This ordinance should not overshadow how much we are committed to assisting the homeless in Boise. We invest thousands into rent concessions to assist folks seeking assistance – places like Giraffe Laugh, Life’s Kitchen, and Jesse Tree. We maintain an extensive amount of rental units, many of which go directly to assisting our most chronic homeless. We provide rent vouchers to those most in need,…

End Quote.

Sounds great on paper TJ, but this seemingly ideal and well written solution is also part of the problem. If we make it so easy on the homeless then what incentive is there to do anything else? And then word gets out that Boise is an easy place to live free or near free (for a while at least), then here come another 1000 homeless. And another, slippery slope which has already proven that it’s sliding.

What Thomson neglects to mention is that many rental vouchers and other homeless services are being concentrated in one small part of town. The west side of downtown. This is a back door trip down the memory lane of housing projects of the 50s and 60s. I’m pretty sure that even the most ardent socialists will agree that the concentrated housing projects of the late 50s and 60s were an abject failure.

TJ, Lauren— How many rental vouchers are being used in your neighborhood?

I don’t pretend to have the answers, but I do know that I see problems and apparently I’m not alone.

Businesses have moved away from 16th and River due to property damage. I’m not naming names, but this is a fact.

How about a designated “begging box” for the beggars to stand in. Kinda like the “food vendor boxes”. The city can charge a begging fee, provide a pay toilet and cash bar. Any people wishing to contribute can approach and donate at-will without feeling hounded or surprised or set upon by the beggars.

PS: Next time you give, ask for a receipt for tax purposes. Or just give to a legitimate charity and do some good with your money.