tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8026011413521090255.post7231476491366954620..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.544-04:00Comments on Shepard on Politics: THE TIGHTROPE OF RIGHTS REGARDING PANHANDLERSSean Shepardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04784017076656340302noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8026011413521090255.post-64072083794412203162009-01-09T15:02:00.000-05:002009-01-09T15:02:00.000-05:00Just an idea. Why doesn’t the city lease the side...Just an idea. Why doesn’t the city lease the sidewalks in the city to private ownership? Here is how it would work. The sidewalks could be leased in block increments for example by the city to the storefront owners for a very nominal fee ($100/month for example for the frontage area of a store). The lease would include several irrevocable covenants attached to the agreement. One, the owner of the sidewalk agrees to provide an easement on the property to the public at large for the purposes of walking down the sidewalk so as no loitering is occuring. Two, the owners agree that the city has a blanket utility easement on the property for the purposes of installing/maintaining parking meters, working on any utility lines located under the sidewalk, etc. Three, the owners of the lease have no right to change or alter the sidewalk in any way. The “rent” from the sidewalk will go into a fund that is earmarked for the upkeep of that particular block (therefore they are essentially paying to pave a new sidewalk every few years and removing that tax burden from the public at large), you could even make 5% of the rent go towards private welfare-to-work programs or something if it would help the legislation to pass without serious opposition from homeless advocacy groups. Most importantly, however, by making what was once public spaced now leased for “private use”, we have now solved any ethical dilemna in regards to restricting panhandling in that space. Most everyone would agree that a business owner has the right to restrict soliciting on their own property, this would simply extend their property line to the sidewalk while still allowing for public use of that space. Business owners who are not convinced that panhandling has a negative effect on their commerce could test the theory by simply not renting the sidewalk and essentially nothing would change. While businesses who want their block to be “panhandler free” could use the program as an incentive to attract the public to their district. I would even go a step further and allow the option of selling the sidewalk completely to the businesses on the block (if they thought they could maintain the sidewalk cheaper, e.g. the company renting the block is a concrete company) with the permanent covenant attached that the sidewalk must be maintained in a suitable condition or the city could reseize ownership of it by declaring a breach of contract. This would have the added bonus of reducing any administration costs associated with managing the lease of the block to the businesses on it.<BR/><BR/>This might not be a perfect solution but I feel like a creative solution can be found that is still morally-consistent with an ethical system that values the freedom of the individual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com