Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council requests draft panhandling ordinance that would limit certain locations and behaviors
Summary
City council requested the city solicitor craft an ordinance that would restrict panhandling in certain locations and prohibit specific behaviors, while noting the First Amendment protections for solicitation.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lowell City Council on March 25 asked the city solicitor to draft an ordinance aimed at restricting certain types and locations of panhandling while preserving constitutional protections for speech. The motion, introduced by Councilor Robinson, instructed the solicitor to craft language that balances free-speech rights with public safety and pedestrian convenience.
Councilor Robinson said the motion was intended “not to ban it” but to find a compromise allowing people to request assistance while protecting those giving help and other members of the public. The motion cited examples of problem situations, including solicitations that stop traffic at busy intersections and panhandling near transit stops.
A councilor expanding on Robinson’s motion outlined specific behaviors the proposed ordinance should address: soliciting at bus or train stops or in public-transit facilities; soliciting from motor vehicles; approaching within three feet of a person unless the person initiates contact; blocking a pedestrian’s path; following someone who walks away; using profanity or threatening gestures; and knowingly making false statements to obtain donations (for example falsely claiming military service or homelessness).
Councilors also asked the solicitor to consider prohibitions tailored to safety-sensitive locations and to preserve protections for constitutionally protected speech; one speaker explicitly referenced the First Amendment when urging care in drafting.
The council voted in favor of the request. The motion asks the city solicitor to prepare ordinance language and return to council for future consideration; no ordinance text was presented at the March 25 meeting.

