Can it be that after months of discussion, protest, and one exceedingly painful public hearing, the abominable expansion of the Solicitation Ordinance has melted away? Thank God, Santa, the patron saint of spare change, or whomever you wish. If the sadists at City Hall kept this up, Austin’s panhandling populace would’ve had to plunk a quarter in City Council members’ respective cups out of sheer embarrassment.
Granted, last week’s solicitation hearing was born under a bad sign. Scheduled for 2pm instead of the customary 6pm – so the homeless folks whom solicitation laws would most directly impact could attend, instead of queuing for a cot at the Austin Resource Center for the Homeless – the language allowed council to consider amendments to current panhandling laws. Yet, as Jennifer Kim told BTP last week, any solicitation changes or expansions are off the table for now – so she either had a late change of heart, gave sloppy direction to staff, or was saddled with an onerous, misleading item (not entirely impossible, considering her outsider history).
Either way, when the public hearing began (more than an hour late), Kim was largely mum; it was her co-sponsor, Brewster McCracken, who was leading this discussion. In a politically astute move, McCracken reframed the discussion to focus on what we’ll call the five Ws of solicitation and its uneven connection to homelessness. “We’ve also heard from a business owner who has told us of groups of men arriving in cars along Interstate 35 and parking in his parking lot and having lookouts and drivers and people engaged in apparently a for-profit business operation,” McCracken said. He then moved to table the misleading original motion, instead asking the Austin Police Department and Health and Human Services to create a plan for a yearlong demographic panhandling survey in the next three months, “to gather data on understanding who is engaged in panhandling along our roadways.”
With the rest of the dais likely longing to dodge this political land mine, McCracken’s motion looked certain; with Mayor Will Wynn ready to move on, Mike Martinez countered, “If we’re going to engage in a 90-day fact-finding mission, I think there are some folks here who might have a good bit of facts that we could use.” One of those would be Richard Troxell, the pugnacious leader of advocacy organization House the Homeless. Flanked by several supporters, Troxell took the podium. When Wynn encouraged him to stick to McCracken’s study proposal, Troxell said, “I signed up under the rules that were existing at the time. … That was how my speech was prepared.” To which Wynn, to put it charitably, lost his temper, something we’re all accustomed to reading about as of late: “With all due respect, we are about to table this, and there isn’t going to be a public hearing at all. Then you won’t get a chance to give testimony whatsoever. I’ll turn your mic off, and we’ll go to the next item.” The anger and forcefulness with which Wynn told Troxell this, along with a personalizing “Richard,” suggested Wynn has some pre-existing issues with Troxell and his often-shrill style. But being mad at Troxell for being outspoken is like being mad at a duck for quacking. When your elected officials are acting more like Fox News personalities, something’s wrong.
Wynn cooled down, offering some conciliatory language, and Troxell spoke, denouncing the lack of living wages – especially among those businesses most often complaining about panhandlers – and calling McCracken’s study “a back door to come at the homeless again.” Regardless, the direction to staff was passed when the original expansion language was tabled – meaning three merciful months free of the pandering, backpedaling, quasi-public discussion and all-around half-assery that’s come to characterize the debate. Maybe someone will plunk a little compassion and leadership in council’s cup by then.
Christmas (Consent) List
It’s the last meeting of the year, and ho-ho-ho boy, is council getting its yuletide ya-yas out. McCracken’s Austin Technology Incubator financing agreements return after getting sidelined, as part of a 53-item consent agenda. Items from council include several omnibus projects: updates to the Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan, boosting public input to the Austin Climate Protection Plan, establishing a task force to consider requiring energy-efficiency upgrades to homes when sold, adopting Density Bonus Task Force recommendations, and the for-profit parking enterprise proposal, among others – not least of which is the triptych of items (approval from council, zoning, and exec session talks) concerning Seaholm redevelopment (see Seaholm Powers Ahead). Seems the oft-maligned project may have hit another snag; this time, those pesky obstacles include the City Charter and the public interest – no biggie, right?
Send direct, unsolicited opinions to wdunbar@austinchronicle.com.
This article appears in December 14 • 2007.