Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Hayward's Next Windfall to Beggs & Lane...Panhandling

Never one to stop the meters at Beggs & Lane, it appears the Mayor Hayward's insistence to push the panhandling ordinance for his DIB cronies will once again make him the top revenue producer at the prestigious downtown lawfirm.

ACLU attorney Sara Latshaw explained today that the organization will be filing a lawsuit against the City of Pensacola regarding the ordinance.


B&L is killing it with Hayward at the helm.

Beggs & Lane
2014 $267,837.31
2015 $220,107.68
2016 $540,613.00

Lets run down all the litigation one of Pensacola's premier law firms is handling for the City:

  • Fish House / Seville Harbour - $250,000 plus
  • Bayview Cross - $70,000 plus
  • ECUA Wells - $109,000 plus
  • Lease matters for CMP
  • Independent Investigations
  • Charter Challenges
  • Criminal Investigations of the Mayor
Bet the attorneys at Beggs & Lane are begging AJHIII to run for a third term.


George Hawthorne said...

It's going to be another "banner revenue year" for Beggs & Lane. The Chiefs' litigation; the Fish House is still running up bills on appeals, and; the undisclosed mess Ashton and the "clowns" are planning and have coming soon.

Anonymous said...

So George, how much property do you currently own in Pensacola? What in town residence did you ever actually live in? And why are you so set on weighing in on Pensacola city issues?
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..
Tired of your foolin and messin

Anonymous said...

Maren, do you have information on campaign contributions from B & L to Hayward? Something tells me that they are "well-invested" in AHJIII "stock". If they were major campaign contributors, it would be interesting to know their actual ROI.

CJ Lewis said...

On March 8, City Attorney Bowling sent an "e-mail" to Mayor Hayward and the City Council with an info copy to the DIB's attorney Michael Stebbins. Bowling has a bad track record on the rule of law to include with respect to EDATEs, the city's Enterprise Zone and most recently the veto provision in the City Charter. She is also confused about the plain language meaning of the word "shall" even though it is used in the City Charter and defined in the City Code. Bowling's e-mail hardly seems to rise to the level of a "memorandum of law" as that term is used in the legal community and seems hastily put together as evidenced by shortfalls in grammar and punctuation.

The e-mail includes one badly punctuated sentence that should cause special concern, "The ordinance as proposed reflects the current state of law however this is an area of law that is evolving." The assumption is made that the ordinance is legal, a conclusion of law. Yet, the e-mail cites no federal case law in support of the claim and especially in our 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The second part of the sentence states that the law is in flux. It might have been helpful to describe where the law had been, where it is and where it seems headed. In sum, nothing in the e-mail provides much detail.

Most of the anger about panhandling has centered on "aggressive" and "unsafe" conduct. Such conduct is already regulated by at least two state laws, two county laws that can be enforced inside city limits and one city law, Section 8-1-25 Panhandling. The real problem the city government seems to ignore is that lack of enforcement of existing laws. The lack of enforcement of existing laws; the fact that the so-called "Legislative Findings" of the proposed DIB law, Section 8-1-28, makes no case for the regulation of passive conduct if it is not aggressive or unsafe; and the fact that Section 8-1-28 makes unlawful passive conduct expressly made legal in Section 8-1-25, and then allows certain groups but not others or individuals to engage in such conduct with a permit, all seems to lay the foundation for a real mess.

At least one group with deeper pockets than the city has pledged to challenge Section 8-1-28, or at least one part of it. As a safeguard to city taxpayers, perhaps the City Council should amend Section 8-1-28 to provide that it will only go into effect when: 1) the DIB votes to enforce it at their own expense; and 2) the DIB voters to assume all responsibility for all legal costs related to implementation and enforcement of the law perhaps being required to take out a bond. If for no other reason than that this new law is proposed by the DIB and applies only in part of the DIB District, it seems foolish for the City Council to divert PPD Officers from real crime fighting duties and for city taxpayers to be responsible for legal expenses that should be a burden of the DIB and its property owners benefiting from this law.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, CL, but my anger about panhandling does not center on aggressive and unsafe conduct. My anger about panhandling is that it has now grown to epidemic proportions, thanks in large part to "the group with deeper pockets". It is laughable to think that panhandling is confined to downtown Pensacola. Far more panhandling occurs outside the city limits, and it seems to be just as bad in other cities. The more popular street intersections often have panhandlers on all four corners. These guys work the corners in "shifts," trading the same cardboard signs claiming that they are "veterans." The art of panhandling has become a "profession" practiced by far too many.

Please don't pretend for a minute that there is nothing wrong with panhandling. It gives the impression to ourselves (and visitors) that we are an impoverished community of beggars. Not exactly an inspiration to bring new businesses to the area. It also raises concerns, some of it justified, about our safety.

How do we solve this problem? One suggestion is for "the group with deeper pockets" and our government agencies to quit paying lawyers to fight it out in court. Use that money to provide minimal food and shelter for those who need it. And, yes, disallow the practice of panhandling on our streets since there is no longer an excuse for it. It is a lot cheaper to provide food and shelter than to pay attorney fees.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous over me,

Doesn't matter how panhandlers make our city look. It doesn't matter if it's become a profession. None of that matters. Because this is unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

So true Anonymous at 12:09 PM. One big problem.....the people in charge of fixing the problem are the deep pockets and moneyed interests people in this community whom tend to make lots of money leaving the status quo as it currently stands. They would rather throw someone in jail to enrich their Private Prison owning buddies than actually end the collusion they have locally to keep their pockets and those of their family well filled while the vast majority of the community languishes in despair. Corruption in this community has always been very high but under Mayor Asshat Wayward it has reached heights that boggle the mind. How can so much obvious corruption continue in this community? Simple...the powers that be prefer it that way because it serves them better.

Why else would a crack head underwear model with a string of failed business ventures and no experience running anything successfully, who requires large amounts of help from friends and family to survive, can be elected not once but twice in Pensacola, Florida. Had the power brokers of this town not helped get Asshat elected he would have lost his beautiful house and lots more. He needed money and all his buddies gave him a job in city hall that pays him 99,999 dollars a year more than he is worth.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous over me,

I doubt that you are correct, but it you are, then make it constitutional. Our laws are not static. We have plenty of laws (most unenforced) to prevent unwanted solicitation. And that's what panhandling is - unwanted solicitation. If these people are cold and hungry, then I am all for providing them with shelter and food. If they are looking for cigarette and wine money, then send them to the county work farm. Enough is enough!