Thursday, May 4, 2017

DIB Talks In Code About Panhandling and The Mayor

Those sneaky kids on the DIB Board were so proud of themselves at the DIB meeting the other day about their panhandling ordinance and their "code" for the Mayor.

The Board stated they need a strong show of force from the business owners to show up May 11th.

The Executive Director was tasked to rally the troops and get owners to show their faces at the Council meeting.

The City Attorney said the current ordinance is legal and "this is coming from the 7th floor". The DIB Board never once refers to the Mayor but just continually refers to "the Seventh Floor".

The Board Chairman stated that "the 7th floor is willing to do whatever and spend whatever to fight the ACLU."

John Peacock said ”ACLU Ego Versus Helping People.”

Hayward should seek a qualified civil rights attorney to issue an opinion letter on his ordinance before going down the route he is choosing.

If Ashton Hayward forces this ordinance and it results in the City spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to lose a fight that has already been decided by the Courts, it is malfeasance.

The voters need to see the wasted attorneys fees he needlessly spends of their money as part of the next election cycle.

If he's not indicted or chooses not to run!

What's going on on "the seventh floor"?

1 comment:

CJ Lewis said...

The real issue no one wants to talk about is whether or not the Pensacola Police Department is enforcing the existing law in the City Code - Section 8-1-25 Panhandling. It very clearly outlaws most if not all of the behavior described the downtown business owners and residents when interviewed by the media or when they speak during City Council meetings. Perhaps someone needs to submit a public records request so the City Council knows how many times the PPD has cited a person inside city limits for violation of Section 8-1-25 since it was put in place in 2013. The existing city law also prohibits panhandlers from stepping out into traffic, something I see at major intersections. Other prohibitions described in Section 8-1-25 now seem suspect given the current state of federal law. As example, can a municipality really outlaw panhandling within 20 feet of an ATM machine? If the ACLU lawsuit challenges both the new DIB law (Section 8-1-28) and the existing law (Section 8-1-25) it might open up a Pandora's box making legal what has been illegal from 2013 to present. As for the DIB, the City Council should amend Section 8-1-28 to provide that it only goes into effect when the DIB agrees to enforce it within the DIB District (relieving city taxpayers of that burden) and also agrees to pay all costs related to defending it in court.