Proposed parking ordinance actually does contain goofy panhandling provision

Two days ago, when I first wrote about the proposed parking ordinance the City Council is scheduled to consider at its Tuesday evening meeting, I said this revised edition replaced the anti-panhandling plank in the original with one that put it in its proper context. Upon further review, upon additional study, this decision is being reversed. There’s no question that this proposal, which is identified on the council’s agenda as one designed "to prescribe the lawful time, manner and place for parking, stopping and/or standing of automobiles and trailers upon both public rights of way and private property" does much more than that. It does try to sneak in an anti-panhandling provision in there and it also contains an entire section on the use of wireless hand-held communication devices that could be completely nullified by action in the upcoming special session of the Texas Legislature.

First things first, however. That panhandling prohibition. Don’t get me wrong. I whole-heartedly support a ban on panhandlers. They can be a nuisance at best, dangerous and life-threatening at worse. I must also admit, however, in my almost three years as a Kyle resident, I have not once been troubled by a panhandler. In any case, if the city seeks such a ban, it should be in a completely different ordinance than one that regulates "parking, stopping and/or standing of automobiles" if, as it is in this case, the guilty party is going to be the panhandler, not the motorist.

But there it is in all its glory. Section 47.33 (c) reads "It is unlawful for a person to loiter in medians or near corners, sidewalks, crosswalks or intersections of congested roads for the solicitation of money." As an anti-panhandling ordinance, that's as straightforward as one can be. Now, if the section said it was unlawful for a motorist to stop his or her vehicle on congested roads to provide money, food or other aide to someone loitering in medians or near corners, sidewalks, crosswalks or intersections of said roads, then it would belong in this proposed ordinance. Because then the guilty party is the operator of the motor vehicle. But in this case, if someone is cited for violating this section it is clearly going to be the panhandler which, ipso facto, makes it anti-panhandling ordinance, which simply doesn’t fit here.

However, I can assure you such legalities have never stopped our local council from passing such non-sequiturs in the past, it will not stop them from passing this one Tuesday and will do absolutely nothing to keep them from doing it again many times in the future. And one could argue that goofiness has its own sense of charm. I, for one, have that type of personality where I can wear the fact that I live in a city with goofy ordinances that make no sense as a badge of honor. Going strictly by the book all the time is boring. C’mon, no harm, no foul, as "they" say.

Speaking of goofy, I still haven’t even spotted, let alone gotten my hands on, one of those "newspapers with a reflective vest" that’s referred to in Section 47.33 (c) (2) of the proposed ordinance.

Now to that second point.

One of the cardinal sins in my profession is to make assumptions, but on the moral ledger that is the account of my life, making the assumption I’m about to make is going to rank so significantly low that the morality police will stop reviewing my misdeeds long before they get to this one.

This version of the parking ordinance, which is labeled a second reading, but is actually an entirely new version of the one bounced to the city’s legal department on first reading, contains a section that wasn’t even included in the original — a ban on the use of hand-held wireless communications devices while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. It begins right there at Section 47-187 of the proposed ordinance.

Now as a small handful of Kyle residents are aware, the city council has already passed such an unenforceable ordinance. (I say "a small handful" and "unenforceable" because I personally witness, at the minimum, three motor vehicle operators a day talking on a wireless phone while driving in Kyle. I will admit I’ve never seen someone using one while riding a bicycle.)

Now here’s the assumption I’m leaping to here. In the vernacular that’s so popular these days in our nation’s capitol, this proposal is a "repeal and replace," not just an addition to. And my assumption is the repeal includes an unavoidable repealing of those sections of the city’s code that currently contain the ban on using hand-held devices. This, then, is the necessary replacement mechanism.

Of course, the entire effort could be rendered moot by our happy-go-lucky legislature, the members of which appear to be so ego-driven they consider themselves the only elected officials in the entire state who are competent enough to make laws. One of the measures the governor is seeking passage of during the special session, that also begins Tuesday, is one that would (1) ban texting while driving throughout Texas and (2) prohibit local municipalities from passing any regulations governing the use of such communication devices and nullify any and all local provisions that are currently on local books regulating such uses.

So there’s that.