The LDS Church has advised its employees downtown to not give to panhandlers but
to refer them to their local bishop or charity.
The Deseret News should have investigated a little more. Most panhandlers do
have a source of income and in most instances are employed. The people who are
homeless typically do not panhandle, but, seek assistance from shelters.
Panhandlers are typcially drug users, not homeless and in short are scam
artists.I don't have a problem with someone that is in need
panhandling on the street. I do have a problem with faudulant activities being
performed. I do have a problem of being harrassed, intimidated and threatened by
these scam artists. I do have a problem walking down the street with these
people blocking my path and following me for a block.I've
worked downtown. I have run into the same people whose car just broke down, just
got a flat tire, bike just got a flat, need a bus ticket, ran out of gas. Ask
them where their car is. They don't remember or give an address miles away.
Does it make sense that they walked for miles to find a phone to call a family
member? Does it make sense that they don't have a credit card?I
want my rights protected.
Panhandling ought to be considered commercial speech (since it's basically
a commercial exchange: you give me money, and I won't guilt-trip you), and
subjected to the same, lower standard of First Amendment scrutiny that
industrious people's commercial speech gets. Meaning that if you can
regulate billboards, or cigarette advertising, you can regulate
panhandlers' often aggressive solicitations.
I would suggest those of you casting aspersions on the poor go read the article
on Pamela Atkins a true saint if ever there was one.
We have progressed in our society where people no longer need to stand on street
corners and beg for food.I do not have unlimited resources, so the money,
and assistance I give needs to go to those who truly need help.Rather than
the shotgun method of throwing my money into the street and hope it will help, I
choose to give my money to organizations that help the homeless.Has it
been considered that what panhandlers do could be prosecuted under communication
fraud?If someone says they are homeless, when they do in fact have a home,
is that not fraud?I feel that panhandler take money away from the truly
needy, which is a low kind of person to be.
@cjbDid you ever stop to think that he realized it would likely be
"dumb" (unwise) for him to go into your private home to work?
I once offered a ... Will work for food ... sign holder some tasks to do at my
house to earn some money and some food. (yes I now know that was dumb). The
person refused my offer, it was evident he wanted hand puts, not a job as he was
advertising.Its upsetting to me these types are out there. It would
be nice if I could give confident in the fact it was going to someone really in
need and not taking advantage.
LDS Liberal,I support traditional marriage between a man and a
woman. I oppose government funding of abortion in any way, shape, or form. I
believe in helping others (which I learned from a book that has nothing to do
with your political party). But unlike liberals I don't believe in the U.S.
social systems like welfare, unemployment, etc. How liberal do I sound so
far?I consider myself conservative but not by the mainstream
definition of the word. On some issues you could call me conservative, liberal,
libertarian, utilitarian, or any other ism. While I generally lean conservative-
in the end I am a believer in my faith and the rest fall where they fall.Am I trying to disagree with your associating me to something? Not
really, because I'm not concerned with how others associate me politically.
That's your doing, not mine. But what does concern me is when people
associate 'helping others' with their own political affiliation.I'm LDS and that's all I need to know or care to consider
Rifleman.“When the mother eagle thinks it is time for the
young ones to fly she pushes them out of the nest. That may seem cruel to the
liberals but it is actually an act of kindness that teaches self
reliance.”Have you ever noticed that there is never any
parallel to society in the law of the jungle? Even in the herds, it’s
every man for himself. Although I do remember a story about Musk Oxen who would
form a circle wall of horns to defend themselves from the wolves.
@rifleman funny I have worked and volunteered for many many years with the
homeless population and with all the organizations you googled I could be wrong
but I am pretty sure you where not among the volunteers. Someone with your
strong negative opinions would stand out and it would be extremely difficult for
someone with your views to actually work with a population you show such distain
for. secondly, I again have yet to see where christ ever gave you the right to
claim discernment and pass judgement on who is deserving and who is not.
@RABYour comment just further illustrates my point. I worked for many
years with the homeless including some how panhandle and your narrow gross over
generalization that they are all drug addicts really does speak to your
complete lack of understanding of the population. spend a little time doing some
research there are some really great national organizations out with websites
that can help you have a more accurate understanding of the population you seek
It is hard for me to differentiate between the actions of the street beggar and
the million dollar campaigns of the commercial charities. On the
street my personal space is sometimes violated by persons with doubtful motives
seeking money. Even the visual only request often sends pain to my brain. When
in the privacy of my home, I am often unwillingly confronted with pictures and
pleas for money to help poor children, sad animals and others with doubtful
motives. Yet I seldom hear any complaints about the paid
commercials. But in my mind I suspect that the owners of the commercials are
much richer than the street beggar. And much less entitled to my hard earned
money. I tend to distrust charities when I cant really see the recipient and
the effect.It all goes back to the First Amendment. Does it apply
to individuals or only groups?
What about the panhandler that stands on a busy street corner impeding traffic
that perhaps results in a traffic accident. It seems that either way the City
loses : either through the First Amendment claim or not having an ordinance that
adequately protects the health, safety and welfare of its residents.
Re: spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UTThose of us who regularly donate
our time in the food kitchen at the Rescue Mission at 4th South and 4th West in
SLC understand the concept of charity. Those who are hungry eat there every
day. In time you learn to discern those who are truly deserving, and those who
think somebody else owes them a living.When the mother eagle thinks
it is time for the young ones to fly she pushes them out of the nest. That may
seem cruel to the liberals but it is actually an act of kindness that teaches
I wish the panhandlers would quit ringing my door bell.
Geez Voice of Reason,You're starting to sound like us Bleeding
Heart Liberals.The Light is beginning to come on, and you can see.Welcome dear Brother...
From the Book of Mormon:"17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has
brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not
give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not
suffer, for his punishments are just— 18 But I say unto you, O
man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he
repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest
in the kingdom of God. 19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we
not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we
have..."-------The most important part of this to me
is the line "and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."We
put our value and importance on things. Some people value games. Some people
value criticism. Some people value their faith, God, their neighbor, their
families, etc.Choosing the right in this life is of eternal
consequence. With that in mind-"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto
one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
The editorial says it is alleged that panhandlers hurt business. The editors
should spend some time talking to business owners about that. The Downtown
Alliance, and other such entities, (I believe even the Mormon Church has taken
this position) have asked people not to give money to panhandlers because they
do hurt businesses. Donate to the shelters, or the food banks, but don't
give it to panhandlers. There is a free speech component to
panhandling, but panhandlers are not allowed to approach you, ask you, stand in
your way, be in the right of way or other wise be aggressive. They are limited
to holding their signs and staying out of the way.
mornixuurGood on you. Come to my part of the city next. LDS liberal can
give to whom he or she may, but stop the sermons. A fool and their money are
soon parted. Giving to St. Vincent's or the SL Rescue Mission does more
good and will make your kids feel even better.
@j thomas please tell us exactly where Christ tells us that we should
label those beggar we judge as the undeserving as evil? Where exactly does he
say anywhere that it is up to you to decide how is worthy of giving? Did he only
give to those he determined where following his commandments or who he thought
where worthy or did he give with both hands to the staring child and the street
@j thomas you "choose" to give to your church because it keeps you
in good standing and on the hopes and expectations that it will someday get you
into heaven not the same as true charity.
@ spring street and LDS Liberal,Actually, judgmental comments speak poorly
of those use them. No one is attacking the poor or the panhandler.
Panhandling may be necessary when there is no other means of attaining food and
shelter. But when our society makes sure there is food and shelter available for
the homeless, you who give to the panhandlers are only providing for them the
drugs and alcohol that keep them down. If that makes you feel good about
yourselves, good for you. But as for me, I'll keep donating my money to the
food bank, fast offerings and Salvation Army.
How about asking those who carry a sign saying that they will work for food,
what kind of work they are willing to do? I've done that. I've
offered work. I've offered food in exchange for work.Do you
know what? They weren't interested. They didn't want to work. In the real world, we would call that "false advertising" or
"bait and switch". If someone carries a sign offering to
work for food, offer a job and see what he or she says. Don't be surprised
if he or she spits in your face and calls you some obscene name.There are good people who need help and those of us who regularly give
"fast offerings" and other charitable donations to help those who are
needy. Hiding behind "freedom of speech" to get gain is despicable. It
is the same as being a "preacher for hire". Good people do
good things because they are good. Evil people prey upon good
people.Give to the beggar if you know him or her, but I choose to
give to the organization that cares for millions of beggars world-wide.
I think the DNEWS Editorial staff should do some real reporting.....they might
find that many who carry a "will work for food" live better than those
who do not and get welfare to boot!
the comments disparaging the homeless, poor and panhandlers reflect very poorly
on the people that post the comments not the people they are attacking.
Re: freedomingood provo, Utah"Shurly Chick-fil-a and it's patrons
understand and appreciate the first ammendment... for everyone."I rather doubt that Chick-Fil-A and it's patrons understand and
appreciate the 1st Amendment any better than McDonalds or Wal-Mart. Not quite
sure why you would try and make that connection unless it is a red herring.
Sorry, commentator, but panhandling is NOT a free speech issue. Hasn't
anyone ever asked themselves why the Constitution does not address whether or
not a citizen is allowed to steal or lie or cheat? It is because the
Constitution was never intended to address what a citizen is allowed to do to
another citizen. That's the business of local legislators. The Constitution
merely ties the hands of the Federal Government. Free speech merely means that
the Federal Government cannot punish you for speaking out against the
government. THAT is free speech. Why can't you slander someone
and istroy their reputation? Why can't you change a few words in
someone's book and sell it as your own? Because your speaking is targeting
and harming a citizen--not the government. Therefore it is not protected. Misguided progressives have successfully muddied the whole notion of
free speech by re-inventing it as something that somehow protects everything
anyone wants to say regardless of who it hurts. If panhandlers are
not hurting anyone, then we should let them be. But if their behavior is hurting
other people, stop pretending it is a free speech issue.
I ALWAYS give whatever I have to those on the streets.I've taught my
children to do so as well.If not cash, an apple or sandwich.No
hand is left empty."Because I have been given much." “Suppose that in this community there are ten beggars who beg from
door to door for something to eat, and that nine of them are imposters who beg
to escape work, and with an evil heart practice imposition upon the generous and
sympathetic, and that only one of the ten who visit your doors is worthy of your
bounty; which is best, to give food to the ten, to make sure of helping the
truly needy one, or to repulse the ten because you do not know which one is the
worthy one? You will all say, administer charitable gifts to the ten rather
than turn away the only truly worthy and truly needy person among them. If you
do this, it will make no difference in your blessings, whether you administer to
worthy or unworthy persons, inasmuch as you give alms with a single eye to
assist the truly needy.” ~ Brigham YoungP.S. - Follow the
I say the panhandlers should go in front of Chick-fil-a while remaining on
public property. Shurly Chick-fil-a and it's patrons understand and
appreciate the first ammendment... for everyone.
I do not blame the author for the ignorance demonstrated in this article because
in truth most people are ignorant of the truth about most panhandlers. Most
panhandling is a form of low level organized crime. I was a police officer and
dealt with panhandlers on a regular basis. Have you ever wondered why a
panhandler is in the same place and almost no one else ever stands at that
location? It is because panhandling locations are controlled territory by a boss
or pimp. The panhandler will work a corner for the day then give a percentage of
the money they got to the pimp. I once saw a female panhandler show up to her
regular location and there was another male panhandler there panhandling. The
female panhandler got on her cell phone and called her pimp. A few minutes
later the pimp showed up in a very nice car and physically moved the male
panhandler. Not all panhandlers do this but you can bet that the panhandlers in
the good locations with high pedestrian traffic definitely are. If you want to
give to the poor give to a charity or a church that assist the poor.
I really love how the right to free speech has be come the right to use public
property for actions like begging. What an amazing illogical extension of the
Bill of Rights. Certainly, those that wrote the first 10 amendments did not
vote for laws that allowed such activities in their public square. But, as the
article states this is how the person earns his living. Nice career choice I
guess in the Obama economy.
A study has shown that the average panhandler makes $190 a day. I doubt they
pay taxes on it.
"There is an issue of freedom from aggressive panhandlers."------Carrying a sign does not make one aggressive. You're
trying to introduce an issue here which is not really relevant.If
you do get bothered by someone "aggressive" I guess you can always walk
away, or call a cop if it rises to assualt or disturbing the peace. I find your
concern spurious though, given the amount of time I spend downtown. Most
panhandlers don't even talk, they just hold their signs. When they do
verbalize a request, I tell them I am not carrying cash, and walk on. End of
conversation. I'm not sure where you hang out.
Driving by a certain home improvement store one often sees Hispanic men looking
for work, not panhandling. The contrast is graphic. Freedom of speech is not an
issue, it's protected by the Constitution. There is an issue of freedom
from aggressive panhandlers.
Panhandlers are welcome to exercise their right to free speech, but if that
right extends to banging on my car window demanding money or attention (not sure
if it was this guy or another in the news this week doing just that), then it
becomes a safety issue and should not be tolerated. Cities have the right to
prohibit "aggressive" panhandling.
The author says "many people don't want to be reminded that poverty
exists, or that they have a moral responsibility to do something about
it."No, most people want to help the truly deserving. That is
what Inner City Missions are all about - helping the poor and needy.What we don't like is giving money to able bodied people who find it
easier to beg for money than work for it. A classic example are those who sell
their food stamps for drugs then come looking for a handout.
I agree completely. Just because someone is poor and dirty doesn't
disqualify them from practicing their right to free speech.On
another note, I often hear people respond to this question by saying that these
people should get a job. That's their opinion and they are free to it, and
personally I would rather be employed than panhandle, but those on the streets
shouldn't be forced to fit into our ideas of what normal is. Interestingly
enough, these people are offering a service which is in demand. When people give
them money, the people feel good about themselves. Whether this is an honest
feeling or a false one is a matter of opinion, but judging by the fact that
panhandlers survive, it must be profitable. So, the next time you see a
panhandler, I would recommend that you think of them as someone selling an easy
opportunity for people to give a few bucks and feel better about themselves.
Then you are free to say "I'm personally not interested in that
product," and continue with your day. Good luck to everyone in whatever
business you're pursuing.
While I abhor the idea that anyone would need to panhandle to survive, I have
never thought of it as someone exercising their right to free speech.
Completely changed my outlook on the entire matter.Thanks Deseret