Improving Public Conduct and the
Public Spaces in Memphis

        Downtown Memphis has seen remarkable progress in recent years. The progress is shown in new buildings, building renovations, new restaurants, increased nightlife and vibrancy, and a new downtown residential population. Businesses are staying, and moving, downtown, and hotels reaching various segments of the visitor market are doing well.

        The future can be even better. Over two billion dollars in new downtown projects is committed, and much work is already underway. Many of these projects not only improve the downtown landscape, but also make the experience of being, working, or living downtown more pleasant. The new baseball stadium, the improved Convention Center, the renovations of the Orpheum Theater, the Gibson Guitar Factory, and the new retail of Peabody Place are prime examples of improvements that attract more people to the area.

        While all residents of the Memphis area benefit from these changes, and can take justified pride in the progress, they should know that this progress is at risk. The viability of downtown as aplace where people with choices want to go will not only depend on new construction. Continuation of the progress will also take pleasant public spaces, the perception of safety, and the avoidance ofharassment and intimidation. Urban residents with reasonable expectations and tolerant attitudes still insist upon, and deserve, safe, civil, and attractive public spaces. If they do not find such spaces downtown, they will go elsewhere, leaving the new projects unused.

        Providing safe and attractive public spaces, supportive of an active, vibrant downtown, will take changes in the way these spaces are currently used, and governed. It will require an end to their use as living spaces for street people, most of whom are suffering from serious addictions and/or mental illness. This effort must be conducted realistically, with compassion, and without moving downtown's problems to another area.

        It is with the aim of improving Memphis 'public spaces, making them safe and welcoming for visitors and all members of the Memphis community, that we provide this Report.

I. Introduction

The attack left the victim stunned and scarred. She sought medical attention, was comforted by friends, and was shortly thereafter back at work. However, it will be difficult for her to ever look at street people in the same way again. Downtown errands will, for a long while, be a subject of apprehension and second thoughts.

The assailant, Gloria Rogers, had been on the streets of downtown Memphis for years. To most people who saw her, Ms. Rogers was just another homeless person, and a part of the downtown milieu.

Some police officers knew differently. They may have known, for example, that Ms. Rogers had been arresteed 258 times prior to the attack, jailed over one hundred times, suffered from Hepatitis, and was probably HIV positive. Anyone who paid attention for a short time could also tell that she was mentally ill.

Gloria Rogers had a family that was concerned about her well-being. Indeed, her sister was a mental health professional, who understood Ms. Rogers' conditions and treatment needs. Ms. Rogers was the mother of five children. Yet, she remained on the street - despite her voluminous arrest record, despite her family, and despite her mental illnesses. On the street, she frequently yelled at visions only she could see. She had a penchant for rubbing feces and trash on herself and her surroundings. And, she frequently carried weapons, such as knives and other sharp objects.

Gloria Rogers was a disaster waiting to happen. The question was not whether her story was going to end in tragedy - but whether that tragedy was going to be her death on the public spaces of Memphis, neither cared for nor treated, or whether it was going to be a physical assault on someone else.

Arrests of street people m Memphis are not rare. What was rare in this case was the prominence of the person assaulted, and the resulting media attention. The victim of the attack had extensive experience working with the mentally ill, and was an assistant to the County Mayor for Health Policy.

Ms. Rogers was appointed a high-profile lawyer from a major Memphis law firm, who fought to avoid criminal responsibility for her, but also to get Ms. Rogers the help she needed. She was eventually committed to in-patient care at a mental hospital some distance from Memphis, where she continues to reside, and be treated.

Gloria Rogers is not, for now, a threat to the people who live, shop, work, or visit downtown Memphis. Furthermore, her story is not one of indifferent continuation of her mental illness, until she either moves on her own initiative, or dies.

Gloria Rogers' story, though, is only her story. Memphis has other street people, inhabiting its parks, abandoned buildings, or hiding places, mostly (but not exclusively) downtown. These people are occasionally the subject of police attention. Unfortunately, that attention is likely to be the only attention they get, other than the occasional look and disdain of passersby.

As the Rogers attack demonstrates, the street population is not only an aesthetic issue, or just a demonstration of a charitable need. The people who spent all day in the parks, who walked up and down Main Street with their shopping carts in tow, are dirty, disheveled, and smell awful. But, that is just the beginning. They also litter, urinate and defecate in public, overturn and empty trashcans, and bathe in public fountains. Their conduct makes the use of public spaces by others difficult and unpleasant.

Some also represent a threat to themselves and others. Living on the street with mental illness, and/or serious addictions, some eventually snap, or "act out," and are far more likely to do so than the general population. They live without regular shelter, health care, friends, or support. While Gloria Rogers is getting treatment, her fellow street people remain on the street with their problems intact, continuing to have a deleterious effect on the quality of life downtown

A. What Are We Doing Here?

The Center for Livable Cities, Inc. ("CLC") was asked by the Center City Commission of Memphis ("CCC") to provide an assessment of the street order maintenance situation in Memphis, focusing (geographically) on the downtown area, and (substantively) on the city's street population. The retention of CLC was done with the support of the city administration, the Memphis Police Department (including its downtown precinct), area residents, business operators, and the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

To provide this assessment, CLC staff members visited Memphis on two occasions. In these visits, we participated in dozens of meetings and interviews with city officials, police officers, downtown residents, business owners, CCC employees, criminologists, social service providers, and others.¹ We sought from our interviewees information and observations on the nature and extent of Memphis's street population, the impact they were having, the care that is available to them, and the care that they were getting.

This report is the result of those visits, our own observations, and CLC staffs years of experience on street order maintenance issues.²

B. What the Reader is in For - A Map of This Report

This report begins with the purpose and methodology of CLC's project in Memphis. It then sets forth our observations on the nature and extent of the street population in Memphis, and explains the general approach that we suggest the City take in response. We also discuss factors that contribute to Memphis' order maintenance problems, and the city's assets in solving them.

We then set forth with greater specificity what we think can improve in the approach to the problem by both law enforcement and social service providers. We defend a role for law enforcement in the city's approach to these issues, and explain how the police and others in the criminal justice system can deter illicit public behaviors. We deal specifically with making the city parks more attractive and comfortable, minimizing the threat and intimidation that comes from panhandling, and preventing the blockading of public sidewalks. We discuss the need for aggressive outreach to the population that uses the city's public spaces, either as their usual residence, or as a place to spend most of their time. "Then, we offer suggestions on other components of a comprehensive solution, such as addressing alcohol sales to street inebriants.

Before concluding, we address, far more briefly, other street order maintenance issues that we were asked about during our visits to Memphis.

C. What are we Talking About? A Few Words about our Words.

We use the term "street people" to refer to the visible population which uses the parks and streets of Memphis as either their home, or as the usual place to spend their time.

This population, or a large portion of it, has for years in many quarters been referred to as the "homeless." While we, for reasons of variety as well as general familiarity, use the term as well, doing so can be misleading and an inappropriate political tool.

It can be misleading because no one can be sure, from looking at one of these individuals, whether they would be welcomed at a residence, or whether they have a roof over the head on a normal basis.

It is also misleading because it leads people to believe that the lack of a home is the crux of their problem, and that their problem is primarily economic. It is not. Their problems are serious, and personal, and have their roots in mental illness and/or addiction to drugs and alcohol.

The term "homeless" was used for years because it was deemed by housing and social spending advocates to have a useful political impact. Lobbying legislators, or generating media attention, over drunks and drug addicts on the streets is not easy. To many, accurate portrayals of the causes and nature of homelessness made the population at issue unsympathetic, and unlikely to generate charity, political attention, or the public spending these groups were seeking.

So, throughout the 1980s and into this decade, we had the "homeless," usually portrayed as reasons to criticize government budgets, free trade, or the country's capitalist system. Hundreds of millions were spent on housing and shelter programs. Meanwhile, the people on the street, who likely had cut their bridges with every person in their lives, remained there in the same numbers, and with the same effect on their communities.

This report therefore will use the term "street people" more often than the word "homeless." Our description continues to pertain to a needy group, but with different needs than they, and the advocates, may think.

III. What's at Stake

Memphis' downtown has suffered a lot in the past thirty years. But, it is not only in the midst of an encouraging and obvious comeback, it offers residents and visitors something unique - a taste of big city life, but with the architecture and ambiance of the 1950s and 1960s. The combination, we believe, will be attractive and marketable. We also believe Memphis' downtown is poised to become something that would be the envy of managers and users of other urban centers - a true community meeting place, with attractions that appeal to all segments of the community.

An article in Memphis Magazine envisions a fellow who fell asleep after visiting downtown Memphis in the early 1970s. The sleeper wakes up last year, looks around, and has trouble believing what he sees. He sees dozens of restaurants attracting residents and tourists, over a half-dozen hotels, and office buildings that are new, or newly renovated, occupied by people and companies who could have easily located in outlying areas. And, he sees Beale Street once again claiming its place as one of the leading live music venues in the country, attracting all kinds of people in search of a good time.

This progress and development has occurred despite the presence of homeless people in the parks and other public spaces. Nonetheless, we believe this population will affect what comes next. The encouraging progress of recent years provides not a reason for complacency, but an incentive to take action to protect the urban benefits that Memphians are once again coming to enjoy. As one interviewee told us, "it won't take much to put an end to the success" that downtown has seen thus far.

Most downtown businesspeople with whom we spoke identified the street population as the single largest issue they are confronting. The people who offered us these observations, moreover, are realistic urban-lovers, who understand that living in a big city means rubbing elbows with people who are different, and often considerably different, than themselves. These people applaud and seek diversity, they seek vibrance, but they want it with reasonable standards of public conduct applicable to all, reasonable standards of cleanliness, and a confidence that a walk around their home or business will be, and feel, safe.

Downtown business owners and residents understand that vibrancy and progress are not possible if public spaces are occupied by people who go to the bathroom there, sleep there, keep their bedrolls and other personal belongings there, and drink there.  It is not possible if going into a downtown store or coffee shop is a gauntlet of panhandling, litter, or people sprawled out on the sidewalk. It is not possible if people fear an attack from a deranged street person.

Further progress therefore depends on addressing these problems, fairly and effectively. The right changes will not only make downtown and other areas more enjoyable to live, work, shop, or visit. They will make these areas safer, and will foster greater residential and commercial development. Plus, they are likely to make a difference in the lives of the street people.

A. Our Goals

We have a vision of success. Its focal point is a reduction in the number of street people in Memphis. It also includes cleaner and more attractive parks, with greater utilization of them by all segments of the Memphis community. It includes a more attractive, more pleasant Main Street, Second Street, and downtown in general. And it includes a dramatic decline in panhandling.

The changes will foster economic growth, such as more investment and jobs, more recreational opportunities, and a greater quality of life for Memphians.

Such a vision is not Utopian. It can happen, and, indeed, we believe will happen. But, it will only happen if the community feels and is safe in these areas, and only if these areas are sanitary and attractive.³

The indifference stemmed, we believe, from a wider indifference - in the state of downtown. Now that that is changing, and changing quickly, the indifference to the city's homeless is changing as well.

CLC has had the benefit of working with communities where a single suggestion, a proposed ordinance, or assistance in a judicial defense could address that community's issue effectively. Memphis' street person issue is more complicated. Consequently, we have no one-stroke approach to offer the City.

We suggest, instead, thinking of the problem as divisible, with the community addressing it one segment at a time. These addressable segments are the separate populations, and the separate areas where the problems occur.

The populations should be thought of separately because the street population in Memphis is not homogenous. We believe that they should be thought of as three separate groups: the panhandlers, the mentally ill and/or addicted, and the transients. The division is not scientific, and we can expect overlap. But, if a person can be helped by a bus ticket home, and actually would prefer being elsewhere, then there is little reason to expend effort in Memphis to get him or her to stay there. Similarly, there are people who are on the street for the purpose of scamming others. This group is likely to have resources and a residence. They present the city with a law enforcement issue only, not a social services challenge.

D. Reducing the Options

In addition to dividing the problem, CLC's approach includes taking steps to make the street population understand that their present practices on the public spaces of Memphis cannot continue. Under our recommended approach, the people who currently occupy the parks and plazas will be presented with a choice: 1) get the help is available in the community; 2) avoid help, but go elsewhere.

To some, this will sound harsh. We see it as equal application of the laws, for the general benefit of all.

We believe that the public spaces of the city should be open to the "down and out" and the disheveled on an equal basis as the office-using crowd. However, we do not believe that any person should be allowed to make the city's public spaces their residence, either on a permanent or day-time basis. Furthermore, we do not believe that Memphis need have two sets of rules for using public spaces, one for the homeless and one for everyone else. If bathing in public, public elimination, forms of panhandling, or nocturnal use of the parks is prohibited, it should be prohibited for everyone.

If the street population can be convinced to get help, so much the better. If they cannot, our goals should not be abandoned. The effort to improve the experience of the user of Memphis' public spaces should not be hostage to any level of social services, or the utilization of those services by the targeted population.

Residents and visitors deserve clean, safe, and comfortable public places that contribute to the region's growth, attraction, and vitality, regardless of the choices of the city's street people. If Memphis, or any city, is going to have the tragedy of homelessness, it is better to have it in such a way as to minimize its externalized effect. All of our recommendations, though, are presented with an eye towards encouraging street people to seek help, and to ending the enabling of their current destructive practices.

E. A Role for Law Enforcement

Although the street population in Memphis can be predictably found in certain places, they are emphatically not everywhere. They will rarely be found in outlying areas of the city, in the suburbs, or even in certain spots downtown. One does not see them on the eastern reaches of the city. We did not see any during our visits to Overton Park. More interestingly, we did not see them outside the Peabody Hotel, a producer of a good portion of the pedestrian traffic in downtown Memphis. Similarly, they were also reported to be rare in front of crowded Beale Street clubs.

Most street people do not bother to go to these locales because they know that they cannot engage in behaviors there that they can easily get away with in other areas of the city. They resist the orderliness and authority of those places, and the predictable security response to a trespass.

Our aim is to copy this success, and spread the same message and disincentives to the rest of downtown and beyond. Street people already understand that rule-setting and standards of conduct are prevalent in the lobby of the Peabody Hotel, or the One Commerce Square building. Rules also need to be set and enforced in the parks, at bus stops, on Second Street, and indeed, throughout the city. To achieve this requires law enforcement, which means it requires police action.

We strongly believe that not only is there a role for law enforcement in addressing the street population issue in Memphis, that role is essential. It should come from reasonable enforcement of fair rules that set a minimum standard of public conduct. This kind of enforcement is not, as some may charge, "picking on" or "harassing" homeless people. Rather, it is treating them like everyone else - as citizens responsible for obeying generally-applicable laws.

If real change is desired, the police will need to do their part. With enforcement, and police visibility, the situation in the affected areas of the city will improve. Without them, the improvements envisioned in this Report cannot happen.

F. Keeping the Focus on Conduct

Finally, CLC's approach to the street order problem in Memphis is focused on conduct. We acknowledge that many people see the mere presence of homeless people in the parks and public spaces of the city as a problem. Many feel that people who look in such bad shape are bad for business, and the residential environment.

In this project, we seek to decrease the visibility and number of Memphis' street population. We emphatically do not seek simply to move the problem to other communities in the region. Moreover, we saw no such motivation on the part of the CCC, the police, or, indeed, anyone we spoke to during our visits to Memphis.

Our goal is to provide the region with a viable and attractive downtown, while raising the standards of public conduct everywhere in the city. Our suggestions are meant to be applied city-wide, with due consideration for applying resources where the problems are most acute.

V. A Look at the Street Population in Memphis

A. Their Numbers and Effect

We do not know how many homeless people are in downtown Memphis, or the city as a whole. We acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree on this question, and discuss the "numbers game" below. What we are certain of is that the problem in Memphis is not very large.

We are dealing with a relatively modest number of people - far short of the visible homeless population in such cities as Houston, New Orleans, Las Vegas, or Washington.

This space has historically been one of the most enjoyed public spaces of Memphis. Change some things, as the space could look like the similarly sized and placed green squares of Savannah. Currently, though, a visitor to Court Square will get the feeling that they are not welcomed there. It will stink, it will be dirty, grass has trouble growing there, and flowers have given up trying. Meanwhile, people who have stopped trying to do anything occupy the benches, or the dirt that surrounds them.

B. The Numbers Game

We do not know the demographics of Memphis' homeless because we do not trust most street counts. Too often, they are infected with bias and/or definitional problems. A 1995 study, for instance, made no effort to confirm the availability of a home for the people counted. In any event, it counted people receiving help and on their way to recovery, and thus not part of the problem we are seeking to resolve.

Estimates of the numbers of homeless people are almost always exaggerated. We attribute this to the fact that larger numbers make for more headlines, and, frequently, better fund-raising.⁴

We urge caution, and extreme scepticism, when confronted with numbers that have been either gathered or presented by those with either a political ax to grind, or, more commonly, a financial incentive to inflate the figures. The later include social service providers whose funding may depend on high numbers - or, far worse, keeping them high.⁵

C. Small Numbers, Large Impact

Why do so few people have such a discommoding effect? We believe there are three reasons. First, and most importantly, many people in the Memphis area carry a certain skepticism about downtown. Many area residents are mindful of downtown's decline since the late 1960s, and, we believe, expect a certain level of desolation and difficulty.

If the person actually does go downtown, they will see many counter-examples, such as pedestrian traffic, infrastructure improvements, residential life, and worthwhile restaurants. If they are hit up for money on the street, if they have to step over a person sleeping in the park, confront a foul smell, or see a pile of belongings on a coner, their image of downtown as a place to be avoided is confirmed.

A second reason why a relatively small number of people on the street have a major impact in Memphis is where the city's downtown is in its economic development. While much has happened to bring workers, diners, and tourists downtown, the level of growth to date may have reached a plateau. It may be possible that downtown Memphis has already exhausted its supply of gritty urban pioneers, who may not like, but will tolerate the panhandling, litter, and other difficulties caused by the city's street population.

The next group of people to come downtown (whether to live, shop, or work) are more likely to insist upon a park that is welcoming and attractive to spend ten minutes in, a bench in a plaza where one would want to have an outdoor lunch or conversation on, and so forth. The next wave is essential if there is there are to be large numbers of people downtown, if Main Street is to be transformed, and if there is to be a visible community presence in downtown public spaces.

Third, Memphis and its downtown are in competition - competition with spaces and environments that do not have order maintenance problems. Retail and restaurants compete with ones further to the east that have no one begging for money at their door. Businesses that make their living from tourists and visitors compete with the sterilized environment of the Tunica casinos, and with downtowns of other cities that have already addressed these issues successfully.

To compete successfully, downtown Memphis will need to offer people spaces that feel safe, looks good, and are free of harassment and intimidation. To reach this goal, the street people that are in the parks and elsewhere cannot remain where they are, as they are.

VI. Why is there a Homeless Problem in Memphis?

A. The Level of Tolerance

We have learned from our experience in over one hundred cities that there is no demographic factor that will indicate whether a city will have street person problems. These problems arise in large cities like New York and London, medium-sized cities like Baltimore and San Francisco, and small cities like Victoria, British Columbia, and Barstow, California. They arise in cities that are politically liberal, and politically conservative; and they arise in cities where the population is growing, and where it is shrinking.

We believe that different factors contribute to the size of homeless-related street-level disorder in a city. The primary factory, though, is easy to identify - it is tolerance. While foraging through trash cans, or walking around with a shopping cart that is clearly stolen will generate attention, and negative reinforcement, in Coral Gables and on Fifth Avenue, it is tolerated in Detroit, New Orleans, and in downtown Memphis.

Tolerance for anti-social public behaviors that street addicts and the mentally ill are likely to engage in reduces the costs of such behavior. The people on the streets of Memphis have come to believe that certain public spaces in the city are largely theirs, to carry-on there as they wish. They have sensed indifference, and therefore can ride out occasional periods of police attention.

There are other reasons why there is a visible street population in Memphis, and the city is suffering from the corresponding harms.

Structurally, Memphis has a larger problem than other cities because of the lack of municipal authority to adopt standards of conduct with the force of criminal law. While other cities have adopted ordinances which improve the safety and attraction of their public spaces, Memphis is circumscribed in its effort to do so, because, by state law, municipal ordinances are only civil. Therefore, there is not even a threat of jail time for their violation.

Finally, Memphis has the problem that it does because of the readily-available social services in the city, which, far too often, ask nothing of the person they are trying to help. Such services reinforce a street person's belief that they can get what they want for free, and no one cares how they act in public. Such permissiveness used to be common in all American cities. Lately, it is becoming increasingly rarer, as social service providers wake up to the fact they may have been warehousing people and perpetuating homelessness. Such an awakening, though, still awaits some of the social service providers in Memphis.⁶

In our nine years of experience on this issue, we have seen cities far less poised than Memphis to resolve these kinds of problems in a fair, effective, and constitutional manner.

First, as we noted, the problem in Memphis is localized, and small. No one who is seeking to do smoething about it should feel hopeless or over-run.

On the contrary, we heard a thoughtful understanding that people on the streets are because of their debilitating personal problems, related to substance abuse and/or mental illness. This conclusion seems to come intuitively for people in Memphis (although there is ample sociological literature to substantiate these conclusions).7

Mercifully, Memphis is also blessed with the talent and facilities to provide the needed help. While more money can always be used, and while social service providers will frequently plead poverty, we saw resources of realistic caring and help in Memphis that would be the envy of other cities.

We recommend that Memphis start by making its intention to change what is happening in its public spaces widely known.

The public message will reach those on the street. As we noted, many are there because of Memphis' deserved reputation as a comfortable place to remain on the streets, to do largely as one will. The end of the era of tolerance for destructive choices acted out in public should be widely communicated. In this area, a little barking reduces the need for later bites.

The public pronouncements can come in a variety of forums. We would like to see the message mentioned prominently, and often, by the Mayor, by members of the City Council, police supervisors, and by the media. We would like it repeated when law enforcement officers deal with street people, and when merchants and other citizens do so. We would also like to see the message included in what social service providers tell their clients (for example, that there is "a new game in town", and in posters and signs in places where street people are likely to see them, such as at bus stops and the inter-city bus station.

C. Don't Act Alone

Downtown Memphis does not have a homeless problem. Memphis has a homeless problem. Even a localized problem still means that the people on the street are suffering. This engenders concern beyond those who see the suffering on a daily basis.

Furthermore, downtown is an asset of the entire metropolitan area. Its commercial vibrancy, as well as recreational opportunities, benefit all people in the area. These benefits will expand as downtown's fortunes improve. The effort to address the street person problem and improve the quality of the experience downtown should therefore be made with as much support as possible from other segments of the community. With greater community buy-in, the City's attention and resources (especially police resources) will be there to adequately address these issues.

VIII. Panhandling

A. The Effects of Panhandling

Panhandling is frequently cited as one of the main reasons people do not like to visit their urban areas. Consequently, in the past nine years, there have been over one hundred panhandling control ordinances adopted in the U.S. frequently accompanied by others efforts to reduce the amount and aggressiveness of direct solicitations for money. These efforts, when applied fairly and tenaciously, have met with much success.

Although the begging problem in Memphis is not large, it should be addressed now, to prevent it from growing, and to help get the message across that the tolerance level for certain public space conduct is changing.

B. CLC's Approach to Panhandling

After our visits, we shared the observation offered by many interviewees that the population that panhandles in Memphis is usually different from the population living and using the parks. Our approach to the problem is therefore different as well. People panhandling may have addictions that call for services that are available in the community, but the primary effort on this front should be to reduce the amount of panhandling.

CLC believes that the best way for a city to deal with begging is not to prohibit it, which is a lure for constitutional litigation and offensive to many's people's notions of charity, but to regulate where and how it occurs. Specifically, we recommend that Memphis aim its enforcement against panhandling when it is conducted in an aggressive manner and where it is particularly intrusive.

Our model ordinance (included in the Appendix C), taking this tailored approach, allows people to seek alms from their fellow citizens, while prohibiting the accosts and implied threats that begging sometimes brings.⁸

Memphis has already addressed panhandling with a limiting ordinance. In many ways, the Memphis ordinance is the most sweeping in the country. In its requirement of a license to panhandle in many places, and in its prohibition of all direct solicitation for money at night, Memphis goes further than every other city in the reach of its panhandling prohibitions.

Should the City wish to continue with its current ordinance, we still recommend abandoning the licensing approach.We saw no indication that a licensing procedure exists. More importantly, we saw no willingness to enforce this provision.

These suggestions, and our model ordinance, formally allow more panhandling. However, with greater levels of enforcement, they tolerate less of it practically.

D. Enforcing the Panhandling Restrictions

Regardless of whether the City chooses to change its panhandling ordinance, the ordinance needs to be enforced more regularly, and more often. To ensure that there is a realistic sanction, the police should charge panhandlers with a state offense whenever possible. More importantly, the police should ask panhandlers to move on, whenever they exceed the bounds of the Ordinance. The CCC's "Brigadiers" should do the same.

E. Addressing Other Aspects of the Panhandling Problem

Panhandling need not, and should not, be addressed solely by efforts aimed at panhandlers. Panhandling is a noxious practice fueled by both demand and supply. We therefore recommend that Memphis augment its enforcement efforts with a public education campaign aimed at reducing the flow of money to panhandlers. Such a campaign should try to reach both visitors and locals.

Spreading the message that panhandling is counterproductive means more than putting up devices around downtown to collect donations. It means urging peoplenot to give, when appropriate in strong language. They should be told that no one need to, or is, begging money on the streets of the United States because they will go hungry if they do not. They should be told where such money is likely to go-to feed addictions, because of the free food opportunities prevalently available in the city. They should also be reminded that they would think twice before giving an addict in their own family money for alcohol or drugs, and urged not to create the same damage with a stranger in the streets.¹³

There are many good examples of public education efforts to reduce panhandling. We especially like the campaigns initiated by the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, which include both brochures and posters, and by the transit authorities in New York.

It will probably not be easy to get cooperation in this effort from certain tourist-related business, such as major hotels. Some hotel operators believe that it hurts the reputation of downtown to have such campaigns, because it acknowledges that panhandling exists.

This is like saying that it hurts to sell jackets in Minneapolis because it acknowledges the cold weather. The panhandling that exists in Memphis is going to exist regardless of whether the hotels are willing to help in a public education campaign. They should be a part of that campaign because of the role they can have in reducing panhandling) and because of the humanitarian benefits of such a campaign. For inspiration, they can look to the tourist-sensitive areas that have initiated similar campaigns without hurting their image or profits, such as in Seattle, San Francisco, and New York.

We are confident that the downtown hotels will find their patrons realistic and educable, and that they can have an role in making their clients' stay in downtown Memphis safer and more pleasant.

Enforcement of limitations, combined with a public message, can address problematic panhandling effectively. Similarly, indifference and lack of enforcement allows panhandling to fester, and grow.

IX. Parks

A. Using the Current Park Rules

Just as we recommend a concerted effort against panhandling, we recommend a concerted effort to regain the use and attraction of the city's parks.

The parks of Memphis are funded by the taxpayers for a specific purpose, to provide a place for relaxation, recreation, and reflection. These purposes are inimical to their use as an individual's bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen. Yet, some parks in the city, including three parks downtown, appear to have been largely abandoned to these latter purposes. This wastes taxpayer money, and denies the community valuable green spaces. Memphis deserves better.¹⁴

To provide their intended benefits, urban parks must look and be safe, as well as look and be comfortable. Park benches must be clean, and available for a person to sit down, to read a book, watch the goings-by, or rest -- but not taken over as it were a bed. Pathways must be clean, and green spaces must be unencumbered by broken bottles, other litter, used condoms, human waste, or the accouterments of camping.

Enforcement of many of these rules when it is homeless people who want to break them takes tenacity. Many times, asking people to move along means they will soon be back, or try to be. The need for tenacity, though, is not an excuse to give up out of frustration. Rather, the police must recognize that they are dealing with a troubled population, where repeated and consistent enforcement of rules is needed. Enforcement is not an endless cycle. Eventually, the community's rules prevail, and street addicts decide to avoid confrontation and move out of the parks.

With greater enforcement of park rules, the number of street people using the parks, both during the day and at night, will be reduced. But, if a person conforms their conduct to the standard that is set, they must be welcomed in the park like any other citizen of the city.¹⁵

B. One Park at a Time

We suggest that enforcement efforts focus on one park at a time. The police should try enforcing the full gamut of park rules in Court Square for three weeks. Then, they should apply the same rules in Confederate Park, checking on those inclined to resume their conduct at Court Square.

We concluded, based on our visit, that the park rules currently in effect, if sufficiently enforced, can lead to an improvement in the appearance and use of these valuable green spaces. However, we also recommend the adoption of an anti-camping measure.

A camping ordinance would reach both parks and other public spaces. It would, however, not prohibit mere sleeping - but only sleeping in public with the indicia of an intent to use the space on a regular, inappropriate basis. Thus, the homeless person, businesswoman, or tired tourist may still take forty winks while enjoying the sounds of the fountains outside the County Building - but no one may take over the area at the expense of the general community.

Our model camping ordinance (Appendix D) prohibits camping in public areas unless they are specifically designated for such use. "Camping," consistent with the common understanding of the term, is defined as conduct associated with residing in a public park, place, or street. Our ordinance is supported by recent court decisions, which have empowered communities to regulate if and where urban camping may occur, and take back their public spaces for the entire community to use and enjoy.¹⁶

Prohibiting camping in public places is consistent with general land use regulation. Urban parks, streets, and other public places are neither designed nor maintained to serve as living accommodations, temporary or otherwise.

Those currently using public spaces as residences will, using a camping ordinance as leverage, be directed to more appropriate places, or will be encouraged to seek suitable places for themselves. Hopefully, by removing the option of camping in the park, more people will seek the help they need and reassume their place as a responsible, contributing member of the community.

D. Helping the Police Improve the Parks

Our suggested approach to the downtown park problem is not solely based on law enforcement, although we do see enforcement as a key component. The community and the Parks Department of the city government have a role to play as well. The community needs to reclaim these parks as their own, by using them. Efforts should be made to bring the general community to these parks, such as with organized events, which will increase the motivation for street people to behave appropriately, and lead them to conclude that these spaces can no longer be unilaterally privatized.

We also recommend some infrastructure changes in the parks, to make them less welcoming to street people. Most especially, the benches that are currently used in these parks easily accommodate people who want to sprawl out or sleep on them. A better idea is to use benches with dividers on them, which prevent sleeping in a recumbent position.¹⁷

Park watering, with some changes in times and the placement of spigots, can also help address colonization of the parks.

Finally, the City will need to deal with the sensitive issue of personal belongings in the park. We believe that the City should remove items that appear to be litter, that interfere with walkways, or that interfere with the growth of park flora. Efforts like these do not mean that the items taken should be thrown away. But, regular removal keeps the parks looking good, and deters anti-social park use.

X. A Sidewalk Use Ordinance

Memphis does not have a large pedestrian interference problem, on Main Street or elsewhere. Partly, this is due to the relative lack of a pedestrian flow in the city. However, it does have the occasional street person sprawled out on the sidewalk, creating a danger to both themselves and pedestrians.¹⁸ Such use of the sidewalks also affects the appearance of the area, thereby having a direct impact on its commercial vitality.

In anticipation of steadily increasing pedestrian traffic, we recommend the adoption of a sidewalk use ordinance.

The City Council of Seattle passed such an ordinance, which prohibits sitting or lying on sidewalks in certain commercial areas. The Seattle ordinance is only applicable during business hours. Memphis may want to extend the hours of lying/sitting prohibition to ten o'clock. Violation of the Sidewalk Ordinance need only constitute a civil infraction, as is the case in Seattle, subjecting the offender to a small fine or community service. Of course, in most instances, violators are simply asked to move along and end their blockade.¹⁹

We believe that a sidewalk use ordinance would be a fair and useful addition in Memphis. In addition to providing greater pedestrian safety, and an improved urban environment, it would create another avenue for intervention that can bring sidewalk sitters to social services. A model sidewalk use ordinance appears in Appendix E.

Memphis is plagued by the practice of certain faith-based or politically-motivated groups that feed the city's street population. Such feeding occurs both from fixed locations, such as church offices,and from mobile facilities.

This kind of feeding is done in a vacuum. No effort is made, by those providing the food, or anyone else, to provide the people "served" with any real help, to tell them about the options they have to life on the street, or to lift a finger to do anything that will keep that person from being in need of free food the next day, next week, or next year.

These deleterious effects occur with stationary feeding centers as well. One feeding center downtown, for instance, does nothing about trash collection, and does not even provide a bathroom for the people given food. Consequently, unwanted food and packaging is frequently left on the nearby sidewalks and gutters, while the loitering population blockades sidewalks, hangs out in local parks, and sleeps in nearby alleyways.

Addressing the problem of feeding centers is a different issue depending on what property is being used. When public space is being used, the activity can simply be prohibited as inimical to the purpose of the public property. Alternatively, it can be curtailed by the imposition or rules regulating the time of permissible feedings, or quantity of those served, such as requiring a permit for any park activity that is expected to involve more than ten people.

If the City does not want to go that far, it could, alternatively, adopt a bond requirement to ensure that refuse from feeding centers and their patrons is collected and disposed of properly. This gives the service provider an active incentive to ensure the responsible, orderly behavior of the people congregating because of its activities.

When the activity occurs on private property, the scope of the city's regulatory authority is much smaller. Here, the city has to rely on health and other code inspections, and zoning restrictions. Some of these operators, after all, may be feeding hundreds where a five-table restaurant would be prohibited. Others may be violating the health code, such as in failing to provide proper food storage, or a bathroom.

Any initiative directed at those who feed the homeless, particularly faith-based groups, has the potential to generate a public relations backlash. To counter it, the goals of the endeavor will have to be clear: bringing street people to sources of real help, while stopping activities which perpetuate homelessness and defile certain areas.

Seeking to address these problems is neither anti-religious nor anti-poor. It is legitimate to be concerned about the problems these operators create and sustain. Many communities want to extend a hand to those in need and maintain a pleasant, attractive neighborhood.

A reform effort on this front will take nerve. Prohibiting mobile feeding centers from operating in the parks will take even more. We believe that either approach is worth it, because the feeding centers are one of the main reasons why Memphis has the homeless problem it does. A decision to allow these centers to continue as they have been would represent a conscious choice to allow the inevitable manifestations of the feeding to remain, and remain downtown.

D. Redirecting the Wish to Do Good

While the feeding centers ought to be shut down or curtailed, this hardly means that their underlying charitable initiative and food collection should be extinguished. These efforts and resources can (and should) be shifted to providing real, lasting benefits to the population these groups want to serve. The food collected, for instance, can be donated to those organizations providing housing as part of a recovery and rehabilitation program. People who donate their time to feeding centers, similarly, can volunteer their time at organizations where substantive help is provided, or be trained as outreach workers.²⁵

One idea that may work in Memphis is to ask the faith congregations in the region to sponsor the recovery of one street person.²⁶ The congregation could help fund the professional services needed by "their" street person, volunteer their time for non-professional services, provide food and other needed items, and keep abreast of the person's progress. The congregation can also be a source of spiritual support and counseling, and can be a contact with the wider community that assists in the person's recovery. Such efforts are far more useful, and far more benign to the host community, than feeding efforts without concomitant social services.

We sometimes feel that our readers expect us to say something superlative about local police departments - such as they are exemplary, or that they are lazy and a disaster.

From what we were able to see, no such sweeping generalization is available in Memphis. Rather we encountered an average police department, with some, but not overwhelming, initiative from both the top and partol officers to address street order maintenance issues. Most of the police's response has consisted of the occasional clearing of specific areas. These episodic efforts fell short of providing the needed lesson to those on the street. Rather, these people endured the occasional police activity, and then returned to their camping spots.

We did, however, see a greater understanding than usuall, within police ranks, of the nature of homelessness, and the effect that street people have on the community. Our interviewees also reported that the police are responsive to community concerns, and calls for help.

We envision improvement happening through a combination of three things: 1) more enforcement of ordinances and laws directed at public conduct (whether currently on the books or adopted as a result of this project); 2) greater use of non-arrest sanctions; and 3) greater visibility of law enforcement as symbols of authority. With these changes, the police will help deliver the message that community-harmful conduct, even if it has been tolerated for years, must now stop.

B. Police Frustration

Many police officers in Memphis appear to be frustrated by the homeless problem in the city. They cite the continuance of this problem in the face of occasional "sweeps." They are also frustrated with the fact that, so soon after an arrest is made, the arrestee in likely to be back on the streets, sometimes even before the police officer is finished with the arrest paperwork.

This, though, is not necessarily a problem.....if jail time is occasionally imposed as a sentence for repeated offenders, and if the police still make it known that carrying on as before in the parks and other public areas will no longer be tolerated.

We are under no delusions. We understand that confronting a street person is far from the most pleasant aspects of police work, and that these efforts are hardly the reasons why people become police officers. Furthermore, these efforts frequently take a greater tenacity than intervention in other forms of crime.

These unpleasantries cannot be used as an excuse to fail to act. Memphis is following in the footsteps of many communities where real progress has been made, and where police officers have seen crime prevention, and attention to so-called petty crimes, as part of their job.²⁷ Intervening in domestic conflicts, drug markets, or gun battles is hardly a day at the beach either. The police can be counted on to do their job, once clear direction is given from their supervisors, inside the Department and without.

When police officers are confined to cars, they lose one of the central benefits of community policing: their visibility, which provides the confidence that the area is one where rules predominate. Conversely, their lack of visibility can lead to the belief, particularly on the part of those most-resistant to community rule-setting, that this is an area where standards are not enforced, and therefore where any kind of conduct can continue.

We recommend that longer jail sentences be imposed for repeated misdemeanor violators, such as a "three strikes" rule. This accepts that most petty criminals need not occupy valuable jail space, provided that they use the initial citation (or arrest) as a warning, and change their modus operandi accordingly.

XIII. Motivating People to Seek Help

A. Changing the Incentives for the Mentally III

Many people on the streets in Memphis are mentally ill. This has a handful of implications, primarily that they need real help, beyond the mere provision of food or shelter. The fact that many people on the streets are mentally ill is not a reason to be resigned to the street person problem. Rather, it should lead to a realistic attitude about the effects of different forms of social services, and concerted efforts to get these people off the streets and to a source of help.

The mentally ill population on the street are not completely schizophrenic. Most, if not all, of them are in touch with reality and their surroundings to some degree.   They are subject to external stimuli, and therefore subject to incentives and deterrents. They usually know what areas to avoid, because they will be bothered there, or prevented from carrying on as they wish. Similarly, they know where the pickings for them are good.

Therefore, despite the mental illness, the community can act to change their motivations, removing incentives to stay on the street and engage in anti-social conduct, while encouraging seeking the help that is available in the area.

In mental illness circles, the driving principal in recent years is to provide the least restrictive treatment option. This means, practically, that in-patient care and commitments will be rare.

While there are good arguments for this approach, we urge that it be realistically applied, and that providers be cognizant that some people, particularly those who have been on the streets for a long period, need intensive supervision, and, likely, in-patient care, at least in the beginning of their treatment program. More intensive supervision enables stabilization efforts to succeed, reduces the number of program drop-outs, and provides greater protection to the host community. It also helps ensure that patients take their prescribed medication on a regular basis.

During our visits, we heard conflicting views as to the adequacy of mental health treatment (and beds) in Memphis. Our conclusion is that the system will have to be pressed to determine its adequacy-but it needs to be pressed.

Again, we are not talking about thousands, or even hundreds, of people - just a few dozen who need to be off the streets and alleys,and out of abandoned buildings. Midtown Mental Health Center, Whitehaven, local hospitals, and Street Ministries are all avenues of effective help for those who need it. The public spaces of Memphis offer these people nothing truly beneficial.

At the same time, to the extent that farther private or public resources are raised on homeless issues, they should be applied in the area of mental health treatment, particularly programs that combine housing with supervised care. More funds could also be used to provide trained outreach services to reach people on the street.

It does not have to be this way. The same social service providers could do more outreach work, to bring the mountain to Mohammad. We would like to see it become extremely difficult for a street person in Memphis to avoid outreach efforts, while he/she confronts stricter rule-enforcement in public places.

No one with whom we spoke in Memphis resisted the notion that more outreach would be beneficial.Yet, we heard of no formal efforts or programs to reach the service-resistant population on the street. Instead, we heard lots of ideas, with various providers pointing fingers at each other in explaining why outreach is not done. We believe that such finger-pointing is pointless. Those who are trying to help the homeless should recognize that not all homeless will seek help on their own, even though such help is useful to both the person and the community.

This is not to say that outreach is impossible. It is not - it is merely difficult, often tedious, and requires all kinds of patience on the part of those doing the outreach work.

Because the alternatives are a major factor in outreach work, we propose significant outreach work in the jails, particularly after arrests and before sentencing. Perhaps when the alternative is jail, where not only is drinking and "acting out" strictly prohibited, but one's entire liberty is foregone, people may choose the more benign care of the mental health (and addiction) social service providers. After people have had the opportunity to sober up (with medical de-tox when necessary), people should be given the stark choice of prosecution or a (social service) helping hand. When appropriate, the police should be encouraged to take people directly to sources of alcohol or mental health counseling, and skip the jail altogether.

Currently, people coming through the jail at 201 Poplar Street will be provided a mental health assessment - if they are in the building long enough. This is useful, but not useful enough. Too many people fall through the cracks simply by being released early. The latter group is likely to include violators of street order maintenance measures. The outreach efforts should reach this population as well.

A. Tying Social Services To Obeying the Law

To increase the impact of law enforcement, we recommend that arrests and citations for violations of street order maintenance laws be reported on a regular basis to social service providers.

We recommend that the providers, in turn, deny privileges and benefits to those whom they learn have violated the law. For example, the free lunches (to the extent they continue to be served) should only go to those who are willing to adhere to standards of community conduct. Pantry and clothing assistance should also be tied to adherence to the law. Otherwise, the churches and other organizations providing these services will have knowingly turned themselves into suppliers to a criminal set.³¹

Whether or not jail is a deterrent, certain social services are valuable to street people, and the fear of losing them, or having them reduced, can change their behavior. Such sanctions cost the community far less, keep more jail space available for violent and recalcitrant offenders, and ensure that limited services are allocated to those willing "to meet the community halfway."

B. Expanding the Realm of Permissible Complaining Witnesses

Actual prosecutions will, by necessity, have a smaller role to play in addressing street order maintenance problems in Memphis than in most other cities, because of the lack of criminal sanctions behind city ordinances. However, to the extent that there is enforcement of these measures and analogous state offenses, complaining witnesses should be allowed in court other than the direct victim of the offense.

Too often, the victim of a street order crime, such as the person who confronts an aggressive beggar, will be reluctant or unable to come to court to be a witness to the offense. Often, the person will not be from Memphis, or will, reasonably, deem the prosecution not to be worth his/her time.

To get around that, other witnesses, willing and able to go to court, should be allowed. The list of potential additional complaining witnesses should include police officers, CCC employees, and downtown merchants. Tapes produced by surveillance cameras should also be sufficient.

C. A Community Court

Memphis appears poised to establish a community court.. The new court will focus on environmental infractions, but will also have a criminal law component. The court reportedly will have the ability to sentence criminals who commit non-violent, street order infractions to community service and social services, with adequate supervision to make both the sanctions and help realistic.

We view the Community Court as worthwhile. It is not, however, a necessary element of success. We see it as an additional tool to bring people to treatment, for both addictions and mental illnesses, but this can be achieved using current criminal justice procedures.32

XV. Other Components of the Solution

A. Alcohol Sales and Consumption

1 ) Reducing Sales to Street People

B. Day Labor Markets

We acknowledge that the day labor centers operating downtown contribute to the area's difficulties, because they attract, and provide income to, a population that loiters in the parks and engages in the anti-social conduct discussed in this Report.

The day labor centers also operate on private property, and perform a function for which there is a market. They should therefore be left alone.

Our focus, instead, is on addressing the public conduct in which some of the clientele of the day labor centers choose to engage. With the other measures recommended in this Report, the magnet effect of the day labor centers will be diminished. Meanwhile, the population that continues to use these resources will, by necessity, change their behavior, and consequently have a less deleterious effect on the city's downtown. We believe that the recommended sidewalk use ordinance, especially, will help address the problems associated with these businesses.

C. The Role of the CCC Walking Patrols ("The Brigadiers")

The CCC has a walking brigadier crew that provides information to tourists and casual visitors to the downtown. Based on what we heard and observed, however, these patrols are not having an impact on the number or behavior of the downtown street population. Other walking patrols, hired and trained by other downtown associations, have had a greater impact on these problems.

One of the reasons the CCC patrols are not having an impact is their size. Currently, there are only three employees in this role. The area covered would have to be significantly down-sized (from the large scope of the CCC district) for three people to make a difference.

Another, smaller, component of a new approach to Memphis' street order maintenance problem is the enforcement (or, where needed, the adoption) of dumpster rules. We believe two rules are called for, the first requiring business owners to adequately secure their dumpsters, to prevent "dumpster diving." We also propose a measure prohibiting intentionally emptying the contents of public trash cans. Such a measure will provide the police with yet another tool to intervene in the common practices of the street population, and bring them to a source of outreach.

E. Parking Lots

F. The City Attorney's Office

City Attorney's offices have been an obstacle to street order maintenance improvement in many cities. This is because they are often "gun shy," preferring to avoid constitutional litigation - or even constitutional controversy - rather than adopt a new ordinance addressing a need in the community. Too often, this has given advocacy groups a "veto" over  useful reforms, just by rattling litigation sabers.

In addition. City Attorneys' offices are often out-gunned, not necessarily by better lawyers, but by lawyers more experienced and motivated to defeat these measures in court.

The CCC has gotten offto a good start in heading-off these problems by making the City Attorney's office a part of this project. It should go further and seek outside counsel, to support its interests, both in any future constitutional litigation, and, when necessary, in briefing the City Attorney. Ideally, this assistance will be donated, as community service work from a major law firm in town. Such pro bono assistance has been a principal feature of downtown association involvement in street order maintenance initiatives in Dallas and Atlanta.

XVI. A Frank Look at Fairness

Those arguing for improvements in the quality of urban life, and in the level of street order maintenance in a city, need not be apologetic for asserting the community interest in residential or commercial vitality. Similarly, they need not apologize for the effect of their efforts on the homeless.

There is nothing immoral or unfair about having (and enforcing) standards of public conduct applicable to all. Such standards are not only routine, they are necessary to have public spaces fit for any defined purpose. This is true with red lights, and is true with park curfews.

Setting and enforcing public space rules does not mean that a municipality is attacking its homeless population, or ignoring its plight. Support for the homeless does not require that a community grant them special privileges, exempt them from laws, or acquiesce in efforts to commandeer public spaces as private living accommodations.

Allowing street people to remain as they area, with their present system of motivations and incentives, means accepting that the problems will continue, until they die. Reforms can change the incentives and encourage people to get needed help.

Similarly, we reject out-of-hand the assertion that these efforts somehow represent a class-based assertion of the interests of the well-off against those of the poor. Such assertions are doubly wrong.

They are wrong because it is not the affluent who generally benefit from urban quality of life initiatives. It is not the affluent, speaking generally, who need clean and pleasant bus/tram stops, who want to be able to walk from an office to a lunch stop without being harassed, who want to park their car with a reasonable feeling of security, or who tend to rely on public parks for relaxation and recreation. Rather, it is the poor and middle class who are more likely to need public spaces to be safe and secure.

Furthermore, it is not the poor, per se, that are on the streets and in the parks. The poor generally act in a law-abiding manner, and adhere to standards of public conduct. They do not empty the contents of public trash cans, go to the bathroom in public, or scream at demons only they can see. Such conduct does not come from poverty, it comes from addiction and mental illness, and it is demeaning to the poor to suggest otherwise.

CLC was asked to focus on homeless-related street disorder issues in Memphis. The wide range of observations and recommendations in this report reflect such a focus. However, we believe we can offer a few pointers on a handful of other issues facing the city as well. We are, in this Section, brief (as our readers will be relieved to hear!). More detail is available in the later sections of the Appendices.

A. Closing Time

Currently, the bars and clubs of Beale Street are allowed to remain open until 5:00 in the morning. Alcohol service must still end earlier than that, pursuant to state law. After a violent incident on a recent Saturday night on Beale Street, some, including the Commercial Appeal, called for an end of the 5:00 closing time, and a reversion to an earlier closing hour (presumably 2:00 a.m.). We do not agree.

We believe that the current closing time contributes to the attraction of Beale Street. The late closing time also helps reduce the adverse effect whenall kinds of people are 'dumped' into the street at the same time, without easy access to bathrooms, or indoor places to sober up. Indeed, we see some benefit in allowing businesses to chose their own closing time, rather than imposing any uniform standard.

B. Automobile Cruising

Just as frequently, the resistance to newspaper box regulation comes from urban leaders' hesitancy to engender the opposition of the principal newspaper in town. In some cities, though, the major newspaper agreed to the regulations that a City, or the downtown association, wish to have.

1) Greater police enforcement of laws that set standards of public conduct, including new ordinances that may be adopted in response to this Report;

4) The provision of mental health services for those needing it, including, when appropriate, in-patient or housed care;

5) An end to feedings at stationary and mobile locations in the downtown by people and organizations that do not provide services for their clients' problems.

We do not believe that these recommendations are severe, extreme, unfair, unconstitutional - or even expensive. They rely on the good intentions and charitable inclinations that are prevalent in Memphis, as well as police initiative and discretion. They also rely upon the spirit of optimism that is pervading downtown and those who care about its future.

We share this optimism. We are confident that, with some reforms, more troubled people will seek and get help, and that the current scourge of the parks and other public spaces in Memphis will be gone.

This will occur not by a wholesale removal of people deemed to be undesirable, but with a change from the tolerance of addiction to the provision of real help, and a change from the tolerance of destructive behavior to the enforcement of reasonable standards of public conduct. In not much time at all, Memphis and its downtown should have the kind of public spaces its citizens want and deserve.

Helping the Progress Continue

Improving Public Conduct
and the Public Spaces in Memphis

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

The Center for Livable Cities, Inc. ("CLC") works on a national basis with city governments, downtown associations, police departments, anti-crime groups, and others to develop initiatives aimed at improving the safety and attraction of urban centers. We also defend these and other measures in the press, public presentations, and in court. CLC is the only national source of expertise and information on a wide variety of street order maintenance issues.

CLC provides an experiences, knowledgeable, respected source that city officials, community leaders and the media can turn to in order to identify what can be done to improve public safety and street order maintenance. CLC pursues its goals while retaining a commitment to constitutional rights, tolerance, and diversity.

Although a new organization, CLC's staff has worked on these issues for years. Its staff has helped local government officials and community leaders from Portland, Maine to Seattle develop fair, effective, and constitutional approaches to real urban problems. Its experience includes helping to draft the panhandling control ordinances adopted in New York, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Washington, Phoenix, Boston, Atlanta, and many other cities. Our experience also includes on-site consultations, including in Atlanta, Houston, San Diego, and Johannesburg, South Africa. We have prepared detailed reports on the street order maintenance problems in Springfield (Missouri), Barstow (California), Miami Beach, Chester (Pennsylvania), and Las Vegas. We have also testified before numerous city councils, the Texas state legislature, and committees of Congress.

We have also published widely on urban crime and quality of life issues, and have been frequently quoted in the print and broadcast media.

CLC's Board of Directors includes the former President of the New Orleans City Council, the Director of the Center City District of Philadelphia, the President of the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, authors and experts on homelessness, and a prominent Las Vegas attorney experienced in these issues.

APPENDIX C

CLC'S MODEL ANTI-AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING ORDINANCE

The Center for Livable Cities does not advocate for or against any legislation. It offers model ordinances to describe its conclusions, based on ifs constitutional research, of an approach to an urban problem that is likely to be accepted by reviewing courts.

Section 1. Definitions

For purpose of this section:

A. "Aggressive manner" shall mean:

F. "Automated teller machine" shall mean a device, linked to a financial institution's account records, which is able to carry out transactions, including, but not limited to: account transfers, deposits, cash withdrawals, balance inquiries, and mortgage and loan payments.

D. No person shall solicit within twenty feet of any entrance or exit of any financial institution or check cashing business or within twenty feet of any automated teller machine without the consent of the owner of the property or another person legally in possession of such facilities. Provided, however, that when an automated teller machine is located within an automated teller machine facility, such distance shall be measured from the entrance or exit of the facility.

E. No person shall solicit an operator or other occupant of a motor vehicle while such vehicle is located on any street, for the purpose of performing or offering to perform a service in connection with such vehicle or otherwise soliciting the sale of goods or services. Provided, however, that this paragraph shall not apply to services rendered in connection with emergency repairs requested by the operator or passenger of such vehicle.

F. No person shall solicit from any operator or occupant of a motor vehicle on a public street in exchange for blocking, occupying, or reserving a public parking space, or directing the operator or occupant to a public parking space.

G. No person shall solicit while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.

H. No person shall solicit by staling that funds are needed to meet a specific need, when the solicitor has the funds to meet that need, does not intend to use funds to meet that need, or does not have that need.

I. No person shall solicit in any public transportation vehicle; or at any bus, train, or subway station or stop; or in any public parking lot or structure.

J. No person shall solicit in a group of two or more persons.

K. No person shall solicit within six feet of an entrance to a building.

L. No person shall solicit within twenty feet of any valid vendor location [as defined in Section XYZ of the city code].

M. No person shall solicit within twenty feet of any pay telephone, provided that when a pay telephone is located within a telephone booth or other facility, such distance shall be measured from the entrance or exit of the telephone booth or facility.

The Center for Livable Cities does not advocate for or against any legislation. It offers model ordinances to describe its conclusions, based on its constitutional research, of an approach to an urban problem that is likely to be accepted by reviewing courts.

Section I. Encampment

A. No person shall camp in any public park, street, or place; except in areas specifically designated for such use, or specifically authorized by permit.

B. Definitions

For purposes of this ordinance:

If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall in no way affect the validity of any remaining portions of this Ordinance.

The Center for Livable Cities does not advocate for or against any legislation. It offers model ordinances to describe its conclusions, based on its constitutional research, of an approach to an urban problem that is likely to be accepted by reviewing courts.

Section I. Statement of Legislative Intent

A. Public sidewalks in business districts are created and maintained for the primary purposes of enabling pedestrians to safely and efficiently move about from place to place, facilitating deliveries of goods and services, and providing potential customers with convenient access to goods and services.

B. During normal business hours, the public sidewalks in downtown and neighborhood commercial areas are prone to congestion, and should be kept available to serve these primary purposes.

C. Except in places provided therefor or where reasonably necessary, sitting or lying on the public sidewalks in downtown and neighborhood commercial areas during the hours of greatest congestion interferes with the primary purposes of the public sidewalks, threatens public safety, and damages the public welfare.

D. Pedestrians, particularly the elderly, disabled, or vision-impaired, are put at increased risk when they must see and navigate around individuals sitting or lying upon the public sidewalk.

E. The public welfare is promoted by economically healthy downtown and neighborhood commercial areas which attract people to shop, work, and recreate. These areas provide easily-accessible goods and services, employment opportunities, and tax revenues necessary to support essential public services, and the economic productivity necessary to maintain and improve property within these areas.

F. The accessibility of public sidewalks is a vital component needed to keep commercial areas as the community meeting place, fostering community life, interaction, and integration.