Committee discusses First Amendment limits as it refines enforcement language

Committee members asked how the ordinance would treat panhandling and whether sign-holding or sitting with a sign all day would be enforced. Legal counsel explained that panhandling is constitutionally protected and that the government may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions rather than ban speech outright.

Counsel noted the ordinance should focus on obstructive behavior: a person who ‘‘interferes with ingress and egress of a building or private property or public area’’ could be cited, while holding a sign without blocking passage would present First Amendment constraints. A deputy chief told members enforcement responses would assess the environment and whether conduct violated the obstruction provisions rather than penalize sign-holding alone.

Members asked staff to draft precise effective-date language and to clarify how enforcement would be applied so the ordinance does not exceed constitutional limits.