In January 2014, Springfield Missouri passed a new bill enhancing a panhandling law targeting “aggressive panhandling.” The bill included new language to clarify that panhandling would not be accepted in public places like sidewalks or near various places of business.

However, in June of 2015, a new Supreme Court decision started cities across the country in reversing their panhandling ordinances. This decision was regarding laws regulating signs in Gilbert, Arizona. Signs directing people to worship services faced more restrictions than other signage such as political and real estate signage. This discrepancy in the treatment of one type of message over another is called content discrimination. It means that you can’t restrict a message based on its content in a way that isn’t uniform across all types of messages.

When applied to panhandling, the message is clear. People panhandling are asking people to give them money for various reasons. If a law restricts this content in a way that other messages are not restricted, then content discrimination is occurring. So if Springfield, Mo restricts this message on sidewalks, but if fails to restrict other messages being spoken on sidewalks, then the law is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court.

The ACLU had lawsuits against both Bolivar, MO and Springfield, MO due to this Supreme Court decision, but Bolivar, MO repealed their problematic ordinance in October of 2015 causing the lawsuit to be voluntarily dropped. Springfield, MO is close to making a decision on whether to repeal their own panhandling ordinance. Initial discussions occurred in the February 8th council meeting. It is interesting to note this discussion occurred after the Unified Crime Report was summarized bringing up the fact that the city was forced to relocate three homeless encampments due to local complaints. The city was able to utilize an organization named, One Door, to find assistance for the individuals displaced.

City Attorney Dan Wichmer detailed the ordinances in place that still address any safety concerns even with a repeal of the enhanced panhandling ordinances. He noted that many laws such as the ones protecting individuals against assault and battery will not change even if a person is panhandling. Many council members were also very interested in the issue of vehicular and pedestrian traffic being a continued concern during panhandling, and they appeared interested in investigating options to prevent traffic issues that may no longer be covered if the ordinance is repealed.

Mayor Stevens had this to say when asked about the upcoming repeal, “The ruling by the Supreme Court pretty much negated every panhandling ordinance around the country. Our Plans and Policies Committee will be examining the decision and determining how to craft a bill that will comply with the Supreme Court decision. When that bill is ready, it will come forward to Council for action.”

Councilman Justin Burnett also responded stating, “After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, Springfield’s existing aggressive panhandling ordinance has come under closer scrutiny. As a result, I support the repeal of the ordinance and await further recommendations from the city’s legal staff on any potential revisions. This issue also brings the concern of homelessness back into the limelight, which remains a community problem. Thankfully, there are organizations that are rising to meet this challenge, and with the recent media story on area homeless camps, we have seen One Door coordinate efforts to place many of these individuals in shelter programs. With that said, I am eagerly awaiting the fruition of new ventures that aim to further alleviate the suffering of those in this vicious cycle. Many of our returning war veterans are homeless and this injustice must end.”

However, as the vote approaches, Councilwoman Kristi Fulnecky continues to defend the ordinance in question on her Facebook page.

Kristi discussed the ordinance with me on Facebook where she denied any court decision applied to this case stating, “A court has not ruled on our ordinance. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens.” In the council meeting she had brought up that panhandlers could threaten someone or make them feel uncomfortable in ways not covered by assault laws, which would also be issues not covered by the content discrimination ruled on by the Supreme Court. After talking to police officers and non-profits, she says that she has come to the conclusion that the existing ordinance we have is needed for protecting citizens. She stated, “We can’t wait until injury rises to the level of assault before protecting citizens.”

Victory Mission in particular was brought up by Mrs. Fulnecky as she described a tour of their facilities by retired Executive Director Jim Harriger that helped lead to her current opinions. She remembers him describing how violent homeless people simply couldn’t be allowed to stay with the rest. Victory Mission does in fact prefer the homeless refrain from panhandling, according to Laura Rush, the Community Involvement Coordinator. She would prefer the homeless seek help from the organizations set up to help them. Laura did want to say, “I don’t think all panhandlers are bad. Some are in dire need that might cause them to act irrationally, but we are talking a small percent, under 5%.”

Other candidates for future local and state offices were quick to respond to Fulnecky due to their interest in helping the homeless. John Seroka running for the 131st District of the Missouri State House of Representatives as a Republican was quick to debate Fulnecky on her public Facebook page. He does not believe the Springfield Police have a record of aggressive homeless that warrants outlawing panhandling altogether, so he plans to make a Freedom of Information Act request for the last three years to determine the real state of affairs within our city. He is also planning a to raise funds for the homeless this Friday night as a panhandler as a protest against the way the homeless are being treated in recent events.

I caught Mr. Seroka just after attending church, and I asked what he thought about Fulnecky’s comments on this issue, and he said, “It blew my mind.” He feels that Kristi Fulnecky is giving into the special interest groups, such as the original downtown businesses that were requesting the enhanced ordinance. He added, “The previous ordinance they had was fine, it was sufficient.” John Seroka also seemed particularly concerned about the homeless veterans, and he is looking closely into programs in other cities such as a Veteran Sponsorship program to help veterans connect and get on their feet when they return. John approaches this from a constitutional standpoint, “I firmly stand for the U.S and Missouri Constitution and believe in them fully and will fight for the rights of all citizens and Springfield and without the influence of special interest groups or lobbyists.”

Bon Tindle running for next year’s city council election was also quick to respond. A key issue in the early stages of her campaign has been reaching out to those in the community to find ways of addressing homelessness. She coincidentally voiced her concerns in a letter to the News-Leader published around the same time this issue came up in city council. She continues to reach out for support in addressing homeless issues using the Social Media outlets she has become popular on in recent moths.

When asked about Fulnecky’s response to this issue she had this to say, “I think Kristi Fulnecky doesn’t understand her job or the inherent rights of all Americans. She only seems interested in backing the people who agree with her or have her favor at the moment. The right to speak to people freely and without interference is something we must protect at all costs, willingly and proactively. Not just for some, but for all.”

The final outcome of this repeal will be decided at the upcoming Feb. 22nd Council Meeting.