Click on the pages for a fuller picture:
As the report states, at least two clients were “engaged by the outreach worker with a goal of receiving Domestic Violence services.” At least three identified themselves as veterans. Very few have stayed at the current triage center.
There’s nothing in the SMOC Outreach Worker notes that indicate how many panhandlers could have their activity classified as “aggressive.”
As should be obvious to longtime readers, I’m opposed to the aggressive panhandling ordinance.
I don’t understand how threatening people with arrest will help an outreach worker build up relationships with homeless/panhandlers.
Any good legislation piece of legislation should begin with the question “What do we want to accomplish?”, then progress to “Can any legislation achieve what we want to accomplish?”, and then craft legislation that will accomplish the goal. This is, of course, as far from the Worcester Way as one could get.
This ordinance will not reduce the incidence of panhandling — as we’ve seen in Springfield, a similar ordinance has not reduced panhandling numbers.
All this will do is have another ordinance on the books that makes the City Council feel like they’ve done something, and then it can go on the same dusty shelf where the Three Year Plan to End Homelessness resides.