Fairfield Smack Down

After writing my blog post criticizing Proposed Ordinance 070180, I wrote each of the committee members expressing my concern about the legislation. Today, I received a response from the author of the anti-street-performer legislation, mayoral candidate John Fairfield. Here is what he had to say:

Dear Constituency:

I am concerned about 3 basic things. One, I have sincere concerns about safety at street intersections. Second is my concern about how aggressive some panhandlers have been and how that could damage our new entertainment area or other areas, or lead to violence. We have invested too much to let that happen. Individuals have told me stories of three panhandlers following a person down the street at night to their grocery store or home. Third, over amplified music is unnecessary, does not create the atmosphere we want, the gas generators are dangerous on crowded streets, and the excessive noise could also drive people away from these areas.

It is interesting that an ordinance designed to deal with aggressive panhandling and safety issues has been converted by the press as some evil attempt to attack street performers. If you read the ordinance carefully, you will find that it focuses on panhandlers and safety.

The bill does not make street musicians the same as panhandlers. They are already considered such by the courts, and the ordinance just recognizes the courts position. It is unfortunate that the courts consider it arbitrary to treat street performers different than panhandlers. When I started to address serious panhandler issues, I was dismayed to find that anyone asking for money (actively or passively), including street performers could be impacted. However, since the courts take this position, we were better off including references to street performers in the ordinance so we can try to deal with the issue. That is one reason I made it clear that we wanted to take the time to consider the issues and possible solutions. The ordinance is just a starting point for discussion.

I have been trying to find legal solutions which would allow the performers but control some of the aggressive panhandling. I have been working with attorneys representing the areas of impact, and have asked them to research how we might address the street performer issue.

We have panhandlers at street intersections causing vehicles to swerve out of their lanes into other vehicles to miss the panhandlers stepping into the street. If we do nothing and someone is killed in an accident, we will be asked why we did nothing to prevent it. As I stated above, panhandlers have ganged up and followed people at night to the grocery store or back to their home. This should not happen. It is easy to say, let the person file a complaint but that is only reactive, and many times has not worked. It seemed better to define times (especially at night) and places when any panhandling was inappropriate.

Last fall I was eating dinner on the second floor deck at the Brio restaurant on the Plaza, and a street performer over a block away had amplified his music so loud our party could not hear each other talk. This is certainly unnecessary, and would not create the atmosphere anyone would favor. Business owners and pedestrians have rights which must be balanced along with the rights of the panhandlers, and street musicians. I knew it would not be an easy task, but true leadership is not about ignoring difficult issues. It is easy for the press to criticize, but much harder to try to find fair solutions to these difficult issues. I would not be much of a Councilman if I always took the easy path.

Believe me, I want the ambiance of street performers, as you do, but I also want to protect the public from those that abuse the panhandling situation for their own benefit. It is always the case that a few bad apples create issues for those who we like.

One possible solution to the street performer issue is to have the owner of the shopping/entertainment district provide a pool of funds for street performers during the non-panhandling hours. I have recently spoken to the some of the district owners’ representatives about this idea. I asked them to discuss how the districts might essentially hire street performers (or rotate them by groups) as a possible solution during the non-panhandling times. Hopefully with continued discussion we can save the good and lose the bad.

Testimony will be taken during the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee hearings that are held on Wednesdays on the 26th Floor of City Hall at 2:00pm. All innovative suggestions towards a reasonable solution are welcome.

Sincerely,

John Fairfield
City Councilman 2nd District-In-District

Here is my response:

Mr.Fairfield,

Thank you for responding to my comment. I emailed each of the committee members, and you are the only one who bothered to respond to me. I sincerely appreciate your responsiveness.

That said, it seems like you're not being straight with me. You claim that you were motivated to propose this ordinance because somebody was followed home or to a grocery store. Where did this happen? There aren't grocery stores on the Plaza, or in the South Loop, or in Zona Rosa. Aren't the VAST majority of grocery stores and Kansas City homes OUTSIDE of the areas your proposed ordinance seeks to protect? It seems to me that well-heeled developers are MUCH more likely to be protected by your ordinance than people walking in residential areas. We can agree on that, can't we?

Your attempt to blame the courts for the fact that your proposed ordinance would ban street performers is silly. Neither one of us believes that you need to ban all street performers in order to eliminate excessive noise, and your attempt to point the finger at the courts is a subterfuge. If you really need help in drafting an ordinance to ban gas-powered, excessivley noisey amplifiers and generators, please resign your seat on the council and turn in your bar license.

It is also silly for you to blame the press for criticizing your proposed ordinance. Mr. Fairfield, it is not the press who is criticizing your ordinance, it is me. One of the citizens of Kansas City who cares deeply about this city, and the people in it. I am not a wealthy developer, and I do not live in any of the areas your ordinance seeks to "protect".

Finally, you claim that this ordinance is just a starting point for discussion. Even you seem ashamed of what you have drafted. I ask you, do you pledge not to vote for the ordinance you have proposed, now that you are aware of how deeply flawed it is?

I look forward to your response. Again, I thank you for your willingness to address the concerns of a constituent.

Sincerely,