Federal Judge OKs a Pay Day for Panhandlers in Chicago

Over the last few years, standing in snow and sweating in heat, Darren Nelson has perched himself in front of the tony shops along Michigan Avenue and begged passers-by for spare change.

A good day netted the father of two about $40.

Now Nelson could get a check from the city of Chicago for $400, thanks to a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of an estimated 5,000 panhandlers who claimed their civil rights had been violated when they were arrested or ticketed while politely asking for money.

“It’s unbelievable and a blessing,” said Nelson as he stood outside a Starbucks coffee shop and shivered slightly from the cold weather.

The case, filed in federal court in 2001, focused on a local disorderly conduct law that let police arrest people on public streets for drunkenness, lewdness -- and panhandling. If arrested, the person could face a fine of as much as $500.

“Having a blanket prohibition like that isn’t legal,” said Mark Weinberg, one of the attorneys who represents the panhandlers. “You can ask me for help to cross the street. You can ask me for the time. But if you asked me for a dollar, the city could throw you in jail.”

Originally, Chicago offered to settle the matter by providing the panhandlers with clothes -- including long underwear, hats, gloves, scarves and other cold-weather attire.

Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city’s legal department, explained that the offer of socks and scarves was “only one of various settlement offers we made that we thought were reasonable.”

The panhandlers’ attorneys, however, returned the clothing option and demanded cash.

On Friday, federal Magistrate Nan R. Nolan approved a settlement that calls for Chicago to pay $99,000 in damages. The city, which admits no wrongdoing, also will pay an additional $375,000 to cover the prosecution’s legal fees and the cost of distributing the money.

But not all beggars qualify. People who were arrested or cited only for panhandling -- and not for other violations -- are eligible. Those who were ticketed can file a claim to receive a maximum of $50; for an arrest, the claim can be as much as $400. The arrest or ticket has to have occurred since Sept. 6, 1999, because of a two-year statute of limitations on civil cases.

As many as 5,000 people could make claims on the damages, according to city officials.

In addition, Chicago revoked its panhandling ordinance last year because “the lawsuit helped us realize it was too broad and wasn’t going to be acceptable legally,” Hoyle said.

“Most of the time, these people were engaging in something other than just peacefully asking for spare change. And the police were using [the ordinance] narrowly to arrest people who were blocking sidewalks or yelling at people.”

Laws restricting panhandling long have been a political hot-button, and cities nationwide have put ordinances in place that ban begging.

All this comes at a time when many cities say the economic downturn is forcing them to short-change their ability to provide enough food and shelter for the poor, according to a 2002 survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Some cities have seen as much as a 15% increase in demand for services in the last few years.

This month, voters in San Francisco passed Proposition M, which makes it illegal to beg in parking lots, near ATMS, in the middle of streets or on public transportation.

The goal of the new regulation, city officials have said, is to curb aggressive panhandling. Violators could be fined or ordered to join city-run programs that help people deal with drug addiction and mental health issues.

Similar laws have been put in place in Orlando, Fla., Eugene, Ore., and Santa Cruz.

“The courts seem to becoming more amenable to these kind of restrictions, which essentially comes down to who can be on our streets and what they can say,” Ed Yohnka, director of communications for the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“And that’s a troubling thing. They’re clearing targeting a particular class of people and a particular type of speech.”