This perposed Ordance would be: -- imposing a Police State upon local residents in Austin TX. --not solve any problem -- SUBJECT Taxpayers to *Expensive* Lawsuits (against the city of Austin and it's employees). The cfity council is acting foolishly. David
---- Original Message ----- From: "mrdavidraines" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:40 AM Subject: Fwd: Sign on letter-say NO to expanded solicitation ordinance --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Carl Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Forwared from the Central Texas Civil Liberties Union: > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Debbie Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friends and concerned Austinites: It is true. There are many panhandlers in our town, and there are many reasons for this. Taking into account priorities from both a human services AND public safety standpoint.. .I think most can agree simply changing the law isn't going to solve anything longterm because it doesn't address the overarching issues. Besides, changing the law will only bring the City more problems. Similar overreaching ordinances have been ruled unconstitutional across the nation. Austin CAN do better. We have an extraordinarily educated, creative and compassionate community. Together, we can arrive at sustainable solutions. I hope you believe this too. For now, those who have been monitoring the ordinances, meeting with Council, looking at nationwide trends, believe the City has at least two versions of an ordinance on the table for consideration (an outright City-wide ban and a "1000' from schools") - to be presented Sept. 27 in order to set a date for public hearing(s). Save the City and ourselves the pain and expense of lawsuits and join us in community-driven solutions. Sign your organization/ neighborhood group onto to the letter below so we can move forward positively - together. Thanks, Debbie Russell ACLU-TX, Central Texas chapter 512.573.6194 ------------ ADD YOUR NAME TO THIS LIST-------- ----- *Workers Defense Project **Texas Civil Rights Project* *ACLU of Texas**Casa Marianella **Austin AFL-CIO** *House the Homeless **Religion and Labor Network of Austin**Communicati on Workers of America local 6132* ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --- September X, 2007 Mayor and City Council Members City of Austin 301 W. 2nd St. 2nd Floor Austin, TX 78701 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: We represent a broad base of churches, unions, community/student groups, legal organizations, and individuals. We are writing to express our concern over the proposed anti-solicitation ordinance, which bans all solicitation of services or employment between the occupant of a motor vehicle and a pedestrian. We oppose this ordinance because: . It is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment. . It will be very costly to enforce. . It is unnecessary. Laws to ensure public safety already exist. . It will affect the most marginalized and impoverished individuals in our community. Individuals could be arrested while seeking work or charitable donations. Furthermore, Municipal Court Judge Alfred Jenkins found Austin's existing anti-solicitation ordinance to be unconstitutional on July, 22 2005, and courts across the country have found similar anti-solicitation ordinances unconstitutional. For example, the ordinances struck down in Glendale City, CA and Redondo Beach, CA are very similar to what is now proposed for the City of Austin. We encourage you to examine these legal decisions and respect the constitutional rights of all of Austin's residents when considering anti-solicitation ordinances. We believe Austin is one of the best cities in the country, in no small part because of the hard work city council does to improve the quality of life of many Austinites. However, we feel that this ordinance does not match City Council's record in equally representing all of its constituents. We are hopeful we can work together to address issues of community safety and protect the constitutional rights of all Austinites. We urge you not to pass the current proposed ordinance. Respectfully, --- End forwarded message ---
