Not a pedestrian safety issue

I see where County Commissioner Lewis Cheek is planning to revitalize his attempts to ban panhandling along Durham's roads. This is an effort that's been soundly rejected by City Council in the recent past, but the Commissioners may prove to be more receptive. Unfortunately for Cheek, even if the Commissioners go along with his proposal, it would only be in place on a very small number of roads in Durham county, and none in the city.

Proponents of the ban have made a number of missteps over the past couple of years, including some very poor rhetoric which described many of the people who solicit along the roadways as "blight."

The problem, as i see it, is that proponents of the ban have to be somewhat disingenuous to enact their policy. What they really want is not to be reminded that there are any number of people in our town who have limited enough options that begging on the side of the road is the one they think is best. But if they come right out and say that, they'll be defeated every time.

The newest rhetorical tactic is the claim of a safety issue:

"I believe roadways were constructed to transport cars and heavy vehicles. It's not a place where you set up a kiosk and do business," said Michael Shiflett, the DBAC secretary who invited Cheek to speak.

Shiflett and Cheek both say the ordinance does not oppose panhandling per se, but is directed at addressing safety concerns caused by pedestrians standing so close to heavy traffic.

Now, Mike is a very good friend of mine, but i disagree strongly with him on this issue. First off, roadways are not only "constructed to transport cars and heavy vehicles." They're also intended for bicyclists and pedestrians. They are, simply, one component of what should be a well integrated transportation network. There are bus stops all over our roadway system at which pedestrians gather to wait for their rides.

There are also plans that the city of Durham has paid good money to develop which would, if implemented, increase pedestrian safety throughout our city. If in fact that's the goal of this proposal, that end would be much easier to achieve by funding and implementing the Durham Walks! plan. You don't enhance pedestrian safety by getting rid of pedestrians.

Cheek does hint at his real agenda:

Cheek has for some time pushed for help for panhandlers, many of whom are homeless with substance abuse and health issues. He hopes the committee will recommend an action for the city to take, Cheek said.

"In order for this to be an effective tool, the city is going to need to take some action," he said. "Businesses have an interest, I think, in panhandling issues. ... There is some concern about the presence of these folks, what that says about our community. To me, it says that Durham doesn't care."

However, an ordinance merely banning the presence of "these folks" doesn't even begin to address the issue. Instead, it criminalizes their behavior. And the only measurable effect will be to push the problem out of sight and into another jurisdiction.

We know that roadway appearance does in fact matter to some members of the Board of County Commissioners. Witness, as we've demonstrated before, the lovely landscaping projects at the Hillandale and Guess Road interchanges with I-85, the likes of which are not seen elsewhere in town. Come to think of it, you rarely see panhandlers at Guess Rd. Sometimes at the Hillandale off-ramp from southbund 85. But they're much more common down at 147 & Roxboro, at 85 & Roxboro, and at Main & Hillsborough Streets. Maybe there's a connection?

Regardless, the panhandling ban is a solution to a very different problem than the one its proponents claim to be solving. Homelessness and substance abuse are social problems with deep roots that are not necessarily amenable to easy solutions. Sweeping the visible manifestations of the problem under the rug, or out of the county, won't do much to solve them.