A new law will criminalize panhandling after dark, if the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore has its way. City councilman Nicholas D'Adamo sponsored the bill, which was requested by the Downtown Partnership. Recently, the DPOB has been busy trying to gain support for its bill in the community and briefing the city council on its efforts. A public hearing will be scheduled if the bill makes it through the council's judiciary committee.

Dusk-to-dawn bans on panhandling have been enacted in several cities including Denver, Dayton, and Raleigh, despite the protests of the ACLU, the homeless, and advocates for the poor. Baltimore's proposed after dark ban would carry a penalty of 30 days in jail, simply for asking for spare change after the sun goes down. If approved, the law will act as a follow up to 1994 legislation banning "aggressive" panhandling, defined as behavior that includes touching, following, or using obscenity while asking for money. That law was also requested by the Downtown Partnership, which represents Baltimore businesses including the Baltimore Convention Center, Bank of America, Baltimore Development Corporation, and the Harry and Jeannette Weinberg Foundation, among many others.

The DPOB maintains that it is acting in the public interest by promoting safety and keeping the city attractive to tourists and convention attendees. The organization claims that tourism should be of central concern to the city's government and residents, and that the primary obstacle to tourism in Baltimore is visitors' fear for their security. What the DPOB does not mention is the fear felt by those whose very freedom and well-being are jeopardized by being poor and having nowhere to turn.

In fact, a special police task force has arrested over 50 people this year for asking for money in the Inner Harbor. When supporters of a nighttime ban talk about "community rights" they clearly do not mean the basic human rights of all of the city's citizens. Myths abound of panhandlers who prey on people, raking in thousands of dollars a month and spending it on drugs, jewelry and cars. In reality, the average take for a panhandler is just $7 a month, and almost all panhandlers are homeless. Researchers at Johns Hopkins have demonstrated that homeless people commit much less violent crime than housed people, exposing the irrational fears behind the public safety argument.

Despite this, to ensure public support for its l994 aggressive panhandling law, the Downtown Partnership launched an "information" campaign, hiring the public relations firm Profiles, Inc. to approach media outlets about informing the public of the dangers of giving to panhandlers. The cause was taken up by publications including the Baltimore Sun, the Daily Record, and the Baltimore Business Journal, all of which are members of the DPOB and ran articles framing the issue as one of public safety as much as corporate concern. The Sun even donated advertising space to promote the DPOB's message. Now, as it did then, the Downtown Partnership states that it intends to help panhandlers through educating the public about alternatives to giving handouts on the street.

But what options does Baltimore's business community offer? The Baltimore Business Journal has suggested following an example set in Cleveland, where the Salvation Army deployed to compete with panhandlers for donations. Passersby seized the chance to give to the "respectable" organization, and the person on the street receives no direct assistance. The Downtown Partnership's Clean and Safe program uses similar tactics which include standing next to panhandlers and passing out fliers instructing passersby to donate to charity rather than give to people on the street. The competitive tactics employed by Clean and Safe make clear its immediate goal of moving the poor, not to safety, but out of the path of oncoming tourists. Though it does direct the homeless to local shelters, these are too often full. Giving a dollar to charity is useless when city agencies enforce minimum rents on public housing, forcing people with low incomes into homelessness, as has happened here.

The enactment of a ban on panhandling after dark would be more than a violation of free speech. It would serve as yet another example of the city government's complicity in the business communityÕs disregard for BaltimoreÕs poor and homeless citizens. Food not Bombs and other groups couldn't feed the homeless outside of city hall last holiday season. Health Care for the Homeless is slated for uprooting, a victim of west side revitalization. The respected soup kitchen Our Daily Bread will eventually be removed from its home across from central library. The city's attitude seems clear: why bother to help the poor, when we can easily render them invisible.