Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines to pursue panhandling ordinance after legal briefing
Summary
After reviewing a legal brief and hearing from the police chief, the select board said a local panhandling ordinance carries constitutional and enforcement risks and is unlikely to be feasible; members discussed enforcement costs and limited state interest.
The select board discussed a proposed panhandling ordinance but did not move forward after staff presented a legal brief warning of constitutional and enforcement challenges.
Staff told the board they had circulated a legal brief and advised caution: adopting a panhandling ordinance could invite constitutional challenges and lead to enforcement costs that exceed likely fine revenue. The presenter said, "I passed out a legal brief to you folks... I would caution against the panhandling ordinance given the risks...the constitutional challenges of the outline." (speaker identified in the transcript as staff presenting the brief.)
The police chief described recent responses and limits on enforcement, saying the town has addressed incidents largely as private-property complaints and that state authorities were not inclined to become more involved. "We dealt with that especially last summer," the chief said, explaining that complaints sometimes resolved when property owners requested removal.
Board members discussed practical enforcement challenges: proving obstruction, the expense and low likelihood of successful prosecution, and the risk that enacting an ordinance would create an expectation among residents that the town must enforce it. One member observed that people giving money to the panhandler keeps him in place; another said the town’s hands were largely tied unless a public-safety violation (obstructing a public way, disorderly conduct) occurred.
Given those legal and practical concerns, the board did not adopt the ordinance during the meeting and instead signaled reluctance to pursue a standalone panhandling law that would require costly enforcement and likely face legal challenges.
