Sylva revisits panhandling ordinance
Downtown Sylva. Hannah McLeod photo
New changes are being proposed to Sylva’s panhandling ordinance, and although a public hearing is not required for the Sylva Town Board to amend the ordinance that governs its streets and sidewalks, the town will hold a public hearing on the proposed changes next month after one board member urged the town to do so.
“At the last meeting, we discovered that we may not be required to have a public hearing about this, but I think we should have a public hearing since we’re talking about a substantive change to the ordinance,” said Board Member Brad Waldrop during the Aug. 8 Sylva Town Board meeting. “Typically, we do have public hearings for ordinances, and I believe this is a rather substantive change and we should have a public hearing.”
The “panhandling ordinance,” also referred to as a solicitation ordinance, is a set of regulations within chapter 30 of the Town of Sylva Code of Ordinances that concerns streets and sidewalks.
This issue has been a topic of interest for the town for almost two years now. The board first considered a proposal to address panhandling in November 2022 but ultimately decided against it after a majority of the board and several members of the public spoke out in opposition to the measure.
However, after Mayor Johnny Phillips was elected in November 2023, he brought the topic of panhandling back before the board in January of this year and directed staff to create a draft ordinance for review.
That ordinance passed by split vote with board members Brad Waldrop and then-board member Natalie Newman opposing the measure. A few months later, Newman resigned from her position on the town board and told Blue Ridge Public Radio, “we recently had the vote on panhandling where to me it really felt like we were attacking our unhoused population in this town.”
Related Items
WCU student art showcase
Jackson, Macon, Swain reach FRL agreement
Up Moses Creek: A Head of Streaming Hair
Friends of Panthertown volunteer appreciation party
The version of the ordinance that passed in February prohibits anyone from soliciting or begging by accosting another, or forcing oneself upon the company of another; within 20 feet of any financial institution; 10 feet of any bus stop or other transportation hub; 20 feet of any commercial establishment that is open for business; while the person being solicited is standing in line waiting to be admitted to a commercial establishment; by touching the person being solicited without that person’s consent; by blocking the path of a person being solicited or blocking the entrance or exit to any building or vehicle; following the person who has been solicited after that person has declined the request or walked away; by or with the use of threatening, profane or abusive language, during the solicitation or following an unsuccessful solicitation; by or with the use of any gesture or act intended to cause a reasonable person to be fearful of the solicitor or feel compelled to accede to the solicitation; and during nighttime hours from dusk to dawn.
As already outlined in North Carolina General Statutes, the ordinance states it is unlawful to solicit or beg while intoxicated, by using false or misleading information, or by indicating that the solicitor or any member of their family suffers from a physical or mental disability when such information is false.
Violation of the ordinance is punishable by a $50 fine. It is a civil ordinance, so there is no possibility of arrest if a person is only in violation of the ordinance. Appeals or protests of the fine can be made in writing or in person within 30 days of issuance to the Sylva police chief, who shall have full authority to decide and render a decision. Further appeal of the decision by the police chief shall be made to the town manager, who shall have final authority over the matter.
What’s changing?
Revisions to the ordinance would also make it unlawful for any person to solicit or beg within 20 feet of the edge of the pavement or top of the curb of U.S. Highway Business 23, which will include Main and Mill streets, Highway 107 and Grindstaff Cove Road. The ordinance refers to these three areas as “high traffic zones.”
The proposed revisions would also prohibit “standing, sitting or lying upon highways or streets prohibited,” and says that no person shall “willfully stand, sit, or lie upon the highway or street in such a manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic.” Violation of this section is a class two misdemeanor pursuant to § 20-174.1.
Additionally, proposed changes to the penalty portion of the ordinance would allow the chief of police to “dismiss the violation and fine if the appellant provides proof of a good faith effort to obtain assistance to address any underlying factors related to unemployment, homelessness, mental health, or substance abuse that might relate to the person’s ability to comply with the local ordinance.”
Another proposed addition to the penalty section says that the third offense within a 12-month period will constitute a class three misdemeanor.
At the Aug. 8 meeting, four people spoke during public comment in opposition to the proposed changes to the ordinance, including 2023 candidate for town board Luther Jones.
“When you passed the original ordinance, I agreed with it, I supported you on it. I do not support you or agree with you on these changes,” Jones said. “We’re not solving the problem, you’re simply pushing it out of the way, making sure that we don’t see the indigent people, the people that need help, people who are homeless, you’re simply putting them in a closet, cutting out the light and saying, if we don’t see them, then we don’t have to worry about them.”
Jones and other speakers also voiced concerns about giving the chief of police the authority to dismiss or uphold the violation and ensuing penalty.
“What you’re doing is you’re putting judicial power in the hands of a police officer, and a police officer is not supposed to have those judicial powers,” said Jones.
The proposed changes to the ordinance had originally been on the Aug. 8 agenda for approval, and after Mayor Phillips introduced the agenda item, Board Member Blitz Estridge made a motion to accept the proposed changes as written.
However, Waldrop asked Estridge to revoke his motion so that the board could hold a public hearing on the topic.
“We’ve already had a public hearing on the solicitation ordinance, this is a change,” said Phillips. “But if you all want to have one anyway just for the fun of it, we can do that.”
“Just to clarify, I wouldn’t say it’s for the fun of it, so much as to talk about a substantive change,” Waldrop responded. “If we’re going to make a rather substantive change, it would seem appropriate to have a public hearing because it’s nearing a very different ordinance.”
The board unanimously agreed to hold a public hearing on the proposed changes to the solicitation ordinance at its Sept. 12 meeting.
