Thursday, April 20, 2017

Mayor Hayward...Before you open your mouth, prepare to...

The Mayor was all brave and cavalier on the radio yesterday about the coming lawsuit by the ACLU against the City for its panhandling ordinance.

He is intent on the illegal panhandling ordinance. Intent on paying Beggs & Lane to fight the bad fight.

What he should have done is turn to the Bobblehead and ask her about CASE NO. 8:15-cv-1219-T-23AAS from the Middle District of Florida.

You see Bobblehead would have been able to show him the following against the City of Tampa:

ORDER

Challenging an ordinance that bans in parts of Tampa, Florida, the solicitation of “donations or payment,” Homeless Helping Homeless, Inc., sues (Doc. 42) for an injunction against the City of Tampa’s enforcing the ordinance and for a declaration that the ordinance unconstitutionally infringes the right of free speech protected both by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution. Under Rule 12(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Homeless Helping Homeless moves (Doc. 47) for a judgment on the pleadings.

Blah blah blah

A. Soliciting money is protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”3 Soliciting “donations or payment” is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Homeless Helping Homeless’s motion (Doc. 47) for a judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. Homeless Helping Homeless’s motion (Doc. 48) for a preliminary injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment for Homeless Helping Homeless and against the City (1) DECLARING that Section 14-46(b) unconstitutionally infringes the right of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution and (2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINING the City from enforcing Section 14-46(b). Also, the clerk is directed to terminate any pending motion and to close the case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 5, 2016.

Federal Order

Nice work Bobblehead!  You are sooooooo good!  You made the Council and the Mayor look like buffoons!





3 comments:

CJ Lewis said...

The DIB wants this new law (Section 8-1-28) and presumably wants it strictly enforced. As for the existing law that applies citywide (Section 8-1-25), it hardly seems to be enforced, an issue that I think is the real problem not discussed. If Section 8-1-25 were proactively enforced, there would be a lot less community angst. In truth, no one wants "aggressive," "unsafe" or "obstructive" panhandlers to include the majority of panhandlers who are harmless. As a reminder, when Hayward took office, during his first press conference later that day he revealed that his real top priority was what I call "urban cosmetology." Hayward said that his top priority was "aesthetics." Inside city hall, his priority has been looking good at the expense of being good. Hayward views the homeless and poor as human liter that if they cannot be taken away can at least be moved out of sight. If the City Council goes forward with the adoption of Section 8-1-28, it should first amend the law to provide that its enforcement is the responsibility of the DIB. The DIB can contact ($$$$) with the city for an enhanced level of PPD support within the so-called "Downtown Visitors' District or it can act on its own to hire off-duty PPD Officers to enforce the law. Also, the City Council should hold implementation of the law in abeyance until the DIB agrees to step up to the plate and assume liability for the costs of both its implementation (to include defending against the ACLU lawsuit) and the costs of enforcement. It seems unfair for all city taxpayers to be made to pay for a law that is redundant and only applies in a very small part of the city. It would be interesting if someone figured out what percentage of the city's population lives in the Downtown Visitors' District, what percentage of the city's businesses are located therein and the district's share of the city economy. In truth, there is probably more sales tax revenues generated at Cordova Mall than in all of the Downtown Visitors' District. If the DIB wants this new law they can pay for it.

Anonymous said...

Question because I don't know.... say jacksons has a license to use the sidewalk is that not now part of their business and they have the right to have the panhandler removed from the area? The license to use no longer makes it a public side walk right? So your freedom to speak in said area does not apply it is not public. I am not a lawyer but that I think is a question that should be asked.

Anonymous said...

What about the panhandling by Beggs & Lane? It's right there in the name Beggs! Hayward has been eagerly giving that law firm handouts courtesy of the taxpayers ever since he's been in office.