July 10, 2005

Panhandling a city dilemma

Homeless trying to survive or vagabonds feeding addictions?

By Taryn Plumb TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

It used to be that during a good rush hour you'd see five or six of them, each staked out on a strip of sidewalk.

On a recent high-traffic afternoon, though, there were just two, both pacing opposite sidewalks at Park Avenue and Chandler Street.

James "Jimmy" Fahey, his bad knee curled up under him and his foot resting against a light pole, was working the north side of the intersection.

"Excuse me, could you spare a quarter?"

He was ignored. Most drivers didn't even look in his direction.

Tacked nearby was a sign: "Panhandling is not the Solution Please Give to a Local Charity." The sign is part of an aggressive public education campaign undertaken by the city to help stamp out panhandling.

Mr. Fahey had a sign, too. Scrawled in black letters, it read, "Vet," and below that, "Disabled."

Wearing a maroon baseball cap - a crop of thick, red, curly hair poking out from underneath - Mr. Fahey said he knows he's not welcome on the street corner But there are times it just has to be done, no matter what the panhandling advisory sign says.

"We're just out here trying to survive," he said. "I repeat: We're just out here trying to survive."

Those in City Hall, though, don't see it that way. They say panhandling is a way for vagabonds to feed their addictions. It also gives visitors a bad impression of Worcester, they say. Hence the campaign that was launched in April.

A major component of the plan is billboards and roadside signs encouraging people to give to local charities rather than directly to panhandlers. It also calls for developing a social service network and a treatment response system to deal with the problem.

Whether you're for or against it, the initiative seems to be working. Or at least that's the talk around town.

But there's other talk, too - talk that the plan doesn't even come close to addressing the root of the situation: the city's overarching homelessness problem.

There are a number of makeshift signs below those put up by the city that state: "Panhandling is not the problem."

Those on the City Hall side say having panhandlers on every street corner presents a poor entrance into the city. And there's absolutely no reason for it, they say, because Worcester is a community with ample social service agencies.

But others, including panhandlers themselves and advocates for the homeless, shake their heads at such responses. They envison a bigger-picture solution, and hope the city will come to the table to discuss it.

"Why are we wasting so much time, effort and money on a few panhandlers?" asked community advocate Peter Stefan, who owns Graham Putnam & Mahoney Funeral Home on Main Street. "We're turning an M&M into a basketball. We have people dying of AIDS, people starving, people who can't afford to buy medicine for their kids. I don't get it."

Other observers temper their remarks, but agree with Mr. Stefan that the city's plan is a bit misguided.

One of them, David McMahon, executive director of Dismas House and a member of the Worcester Homeless Action Committee, said the city's perception of the problem is greater than what actually exists. In essence, They're making a mountain out of a molehill, he said.

"I wonder how many panhandlers there actually are," he said. While no one seems to know for sure, the consensus is a dozen or so.

Mayor Timothy P. Murray is one of the biggest champions of the anti-panhandling initiative. He firmly supported the effort and, in an interview, repeated his belief that forking money over to panhandlers does more harm than good.

He said he is appreciative of the fact that people feel compelled to give, but sees panhandling as a public health issue. You just can't let beggars loiter on the sidewalks and weave through traffic, he argues. Or condone a habit, either, he said.

"These individuals who are panhandling, in almost every instance, are doing so to feed a drug or alcohol problem," he said. "We have people in inebriated, altered states walking around at intersections."

Panhandlers are angered by such stereotypes. Those interviewed said they don't have a substance abuse problem and insist they have just been dealt a bad blow. They say they're merely trying to put food in their mouths.

"It's legal to stand here and say hello," Jimmy Fahey said, standing alongside Chandler Street. "You're not giving money to someone to buy drugs. You're helping someone keep their head above water."

His friend, a panhandler who did not wish to be identified, was a bit more indignant.

"Panhandling is not the answer," he said mockingly. "Not the answer to what? What do they know about my problems?"

Both men said they take issue with "tag days," when local sports teams take to the streets for fund raising.

Anyone who's driven down Park Avenue on a sunny afternoon when tag days are taking place can be sympathetic to the gripe. People dart into traffic, three or four deep, knocking on windows, asking for spare change - all things panhandlers have been discouraged from doing.

But there's a difference between the two, according to Sgt. Gary J. Quitadamo of the Worcester Police Department. Sports teams participating in tag days have to get a license. They get one by submitting a letter showing proof that they are a charitable nonprofit, and listing the days, locations and times the fund-raisers will be held.

District 4 City Councilor Barbara G. Haller said she can understand the complaint from Mr. Fahey and his friend, but it stops there. Tag days and panhandling are not comparable.

"Why is panhandling a problem? Because we're trying to be a welcoming, engaging city," she said recently as she helped clean up a boccie court off Castle Street. "A panhandler on every corner can indicate a city is not providing services for people facing tough times."

And it's a phenomenon that works to discourage individuals and businesses from settling in Worcester, she maintained.

"If you're in the city and you're confronted by people coming at your (car) windows with their sign, it's a deterrent," she said.

But it's a constitutional right, according to Mr. Stefan, for both those giving and taking.

"I personally don't agree with panhandling, but my agreeing with it has nothing to do with whether it's legal or not," he said.

Officer Anthony M. Petrone, vice president of police union Local 378, generally agreed, adding that there is only so much that can be done from a legal standpoint.

"If they're in the middle of the road and impeding traffic, they're a nuisance," he said. ">But if they're just standing on the street corner, there's nothing that prohibits that."

Simply put, it's not a priority with cops on the beat. Officer Petrone said that's mostly because there just are not enough resources, but also because police officers are reluctant to single out those who are down on their luck.

"We can't have someone assigned to just going around the city telling panhandlers not to stand on the street corner," he said. "Would you rather have a cop doing that or responding to a house that was broken into?"

Despite police officers' lack of authority to enforce the city's campaign, most people on both sides of the debate have noticed a difference out on the streets.

"There's no question it's beginning to become effective," Mr. Murray said, noting that the number of panhandlers in the city appears to have been cut in half. And the guys out on the streets admit to feeling the pinch.

Jimmy Fahey said he and other panhandlers have been lying low, for the most part, because the money just isn't as good as it once was. "The signs and billboards have made a big difference. I'm lucky to make $2."

Officer Petrone echoed Mr. Fahey's comment. "I don't see the same people at the same intersections. I know it's not the same people and the same amount of people," he said.

But just because the panhandlers are going away doesn't mean the city's homelessness problem is also fading, advocates said.

Mr. McMahon said he'd like to see the City Manager's Commission on Homelessness become an active force, as it was when Thomas R. Hoover was city manager.

The effort, which could qualify for federal funding, should involve a van "loaded with resources" patrolling the streets and providing assistance to the city's homeless, he said.

"There needs to be more than just signs to tackle panhandling and improving lives," he said. "The problem is a little deeper than not giving change to panhandlers."

Grace K. Carmark, executive director of the Central Massachusetts Housing Alliance, concurs.

"We need to stop trying to jump on little fires and get to root of the problem: How do we as city have a coordinated strategy to end homelessness?" she asked.

One proposal is to allow people to purchase vouchers at area supermarkets, in increments of $2 to $10, and pass them out to panhandlers in lieu of cash. Susan Smith, co-founder of the Worcester-based Blue Pumpkin Productions, suggested the vouchers in April when the city announced its anti-panhandling campaign. It's now in the city council's hands, she said.

Mr. Murray said he knows the city's initiative against panhandling merely skirts the city's homelessness problem, and he's willing to come to the table to discuss an aggressive outreach program.

What he would like to see, he said, is a more collective discussion that includes City Hall, businesses and social service agencies in Worcester as well as representatives from similar service agencies across Central Massachusetts.

"There's no question that we as a city, region - individuals - have a responsibility for providing assistance to those who face special challenges," he said.

Mr. Fahey understands a little something about challenge.

As he waited on his corner for the next likely handout, a car with an open window stopped at the red light and he limped toward it. The woman behind the wheel quickly closed the window and sped away when the light turned green.

"There it goes," he said as he watched her drive away.

Fifteen more minutes ticked by.

Nobody gave him a cent - nor the time of day.