So there's no chance San Francisco will do this.

[madbaker]

Somewhat in nitnorth-style...

Atlanta passed an ordinance Monday banning begging within a 70-block, triangular district encompassing Atlanta's largets hotels, convention halls, and attractions.

Comments from the pro-ban side:

"Panhandling has a debilitating effect on the tourism industry, on residents downtown, and on businesses downtown. People are frightened."
"People have called my restaurant to say they won't return after being accosted."

From the anti-ban side:

"Tourism is racism, classism, and segregation."
"We are fighting corporate fascism. I am opposed to apartheid in Atlanta, and this is what we are talking about."

There are good and reasonable arguments to make opposing the ban. You don't help your cause by appearing as a raving loon.
(Any bets as to when the word "Nazi" is used?)

What I'm reading: Neal Asher, Gridlinked

Comments

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

Someone up there disagreed with this. Well, yes, baldly put that way it can be argued that it is not true.

With an "or" in there, and "Restricting panhandlers so they won't disturb tourists is racism, classism, or segregation," it begins to have shreds of truth.

Many beggars are 1) not white; 2) the underclass: unemployed or underemployed, poverty-stricken, homeless, mentally disturbed but untreated because of program cuts, and so on; 3) clearly separated from others by this regulation. Here's the Merriam-Webster definition:

Main Entry: seg·re·ga·tion
Pronunciation: "se-gri-'gA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the state of being alone or kept apart from others 
(the forced segregation of racial minorities was once widely
accepted as a fact of life) -- see ISOLATION
2 a : the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by 
enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to 
social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other 
discriminatory means.  b : the separation for special treatment or 
observation of individuals or items from a larger group (segregation
of gifted children into accelerated classes)

Of course, if you don't buy arguments 1 or 2 regarding racism or classism, then 3 is harder to prove.

And, while I admit to a huge bias against southern improvement on race and gender issues, we are talking about Atlanta, where the MARTA (public transit) system is still nicknamed "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta."

---

Before you eat me alive for that part, it is also true that many tourists have to have at least moderate income to travel; many in the south are white or Asian; and fewer are middle-income blacks. (Data from a story in the NY Times a few years ago; I will accept changes in data for a more current picture.) In that case, the statement is stupid, but true.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

With an "or" in there, and "Restricting panhandlers so they won't disturb tourists is racism, classism, or segregation," it begins to have shreds of truth.

Oh, no argument. But the original statment implied that Tourism is "racism, classism, or segregation." Which is way out of bounds.

As for the ruling, I think it's only racist if they only prosecute one race in pursuit of the ornance. The other two, yes, the ordnance is both classist and segregationist, except not Segregationist.

The question I have is: will it work to make patrons happier? Why not offer the panhandlers a free meal across town instead of making them illegal?

Racist motivations

[metageek.livejournal.com]

As for the ruling, I think it's only racist if they only prosecute one race in pursuit of the ornance.

There are at least three dimensions here: racist effects (what Pat was talking about), racist implementation (what you're talking about), and racist motivation. Most people tend to conflate them, which is why someone playing the race card can say, in effect, "if you do something with racist effects, you're a racist". That's where we get, say, accusations of racism against companies who site polluting factories in minority neighborhoods (even though the companies are just looking for cheap real estate).

So, when you say that an ordinance that's implemented fairly isn't racist, what you really mean is that it isn't racist in implementation. That's a useful metric, but it's not the only one here.

And then there's racist motivations. I have no doubt whatsoever that part of the motivation for this law is white people getting tired of blacks "accosting" them on the street. Specifically, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that whoever submitted the bill was prompted to do it when he saw a black man approach a white woman. But motivations are impossible to prove, so the people voting for the bill can stand up and say, "No, no, I'm not a racist! Some of my best friends' servants are black!" "But most of the beggars you're banning are black." "Well, I'm not sure that's true; I'd have to see a study. Anyway, that's just a coincidence; that's not why we passed this bill." "But I just saw the police ignore a white beggar and arrest a black one!" "That's just anecdotal evidence. Besides, I'm sure they had a good reason. Anyway, you can't blame us for racism in the police department; this bill is not racist".

Re: Racist motivations

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

Although the motivation for the bill doesn't have to be racist in nature. We have a surfeit of panhandlers in San Francisco, of various colors. I get tired of being approached by all of them.

That being said, I don't think a ban is a viable solution. It's a band-aid, and not necessarily an effective one.

Re: Racist motivations

[metageek.livejournal.com]

Although the motivation for the bill doesn't have to be racist in nature.

In theory, no. But the odds are pretty definitely in favor of racism.

We have a surfeit of panhandlers in San Francisco, of various colors.

San Francisco is not Atlanta. Georgia has a lot more blacks, and a lot more prejudice against them.

(Admittedly, I never lived in Atlanta, but I spent some 10 years in Augusta.)