Myths vs Facts about Panhandling

Our City Council is concerned about "aggressive panhandling" in the business district and wants to take steps to curb it. Some of their programmatic ideas are excellent. They are investing $250,000 in such things as an emergency shelter fund, rapid rehousing, a case manager at the library, cops specially trained to work with the homeless, etc. They are also aware of the need for permanent supportive housing and recognize that housing the homeless will eliminate most of the problems. But as an immediate response to a perceived crisis, the City is also looking to law enforcement and is considering "anti-camping" and anti-panhandling ordinances.  Arresting, fining and jailing "aggressive" panhandlers might placate business interests, but I feel these measures will do little to solve the problem.

To deal with panhandling, we need to know who is panhandling, and why. Ideally, the City should survey the panhandlers in our City to find out more about them. Meanwhile I did some online research and found articles that I think could help our City Council come up with effective policies.

What is the profile of the typical panhandler in San Francisco, how much do they make, and how do they spend their money?

                                                                                                                                                                        Conservatives like Stossel at Fox News and  New York Post spread the idea that panhandlers are making lots of money and are using it mainly for drugs and alcohol.   In an article called “Everything you thought about panhandlers is wrong,” Scott Keyes gives the results of a survey of panhandlers conducted in San Francisco that shows this is simply untrue for the vast majority of panhandlers. Here’s the summary:

“In San Francisco’s Union Square, the typical panhandler is a disabled middle-aged single male who is a racial minority and makes less than $25 per day despite panhandling seven days a week for more than five years. Though [Fox News commentator] Stossel was insistent that panhandlers just use the money for beer and pot, the majority of those surveyed did not. In fact, 94 percent used the meager funds they raised for food.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/30/2856411/panhandling-stats/

Of course, panhandlers also use some of their money for alcohol, drugs and cigarettes, just like other Americans do.

Is it better to give money to panhandlers or to social service organizations?

 Derek Thompson argues it is better to give money to organizations that provide services for the homeless rather than directly to panhandlers, which is basically true:

“The upshot: The homeless often need something more than money. They need money and direction. For most homeless people, direction means a job and a roof. A 1999 study from HUD polled homeless people about what they needed most: 42% said help finding a job; 38% said finding housing; 30% said paying rent or utilities; 13% said training or medical care.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/should-you-give-money-to-homeless-people/72820/

I agree with Thompson but I have a caveat: suppose the City isn’t providing what homeless and poor people need to survive, much less thrive. If there isn’t enough housing, jobs, medical assistance, food, etc. shouldn’t a homeless person have the right to ask for help through panhandling? It may not be the best solution, but in some cases, it’s necessary. Take, for instance, my friend Melissa who received $900 in SSI, which was not enough for rent, much less food. She had to panhandle for food and rent.

As the Toronto study cited below indicates, there sometimes aren’t enough funds for housing and social services to insure that very low income people get the food and housing they need. Some low-income people have to supplement what they receive in social services with some other income source, like panhandling, recycling or doing odd jobs. Here’s how a Canadian study addresses this question:

Do panhandlers like panhandling and do they need the money? How do they use it?

A Toronto study indicates that 70% of panhandlers would prefer a job (even a minimum wage job) and those who panhandle and live in apartments would probably be on the street if they didn’t panhandle:

“In conclusion, the majority of panhandlers in Toronto are homeless and living in extreme poverty. We found that the amount of money panhandlers spend on alcohol and illicit drugs is significant, but much lower than some have suggested. The health effects of a loss of panhandling income are uncertain, because panhandlers might reduce their food intake, reduce their substance use or find other sources of income. For the one-fourth of panhandlers who rent a room or apartment, however, any loss of income could easily lead to homelessness. Future studies of panhandlers should attempt to verify income and spending patterns objectively and examine differences in these variables by sex, housing status and health status.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC121964/

How much do panhandlers make?

I was intrigued to read this article by a formerly homeless person. Based on her informal survey, she estimates around $10 – 100 per day. This is anecdotal, but interesting because it gives a picture of what panhandlers are like in California.

http://homelessadvice.com/how-much-do-panhandlers-make.html

Aggressive Panhandling: A police policy perspective

This is the most detailed and comprehensive study I’ve found, from a website called “Center for Policy-Oriented Policing.” http://www.popcenter.org/problems/panhandling/print/  It deals with a whole range of issues, including best practices for police. This is a “must read” for policy makers. This passage suggests that police need to be trained to be thoughtful in enforcement of aggressive-panhandling laws by knowing the street culture. This study assumes that panhandlers are not mentally ill and acting out, but rational individuals trying to survive by panhandling.

Police need not heavily enforce aggressive-panhandling laws in order to control panhandling; the informal norms among most panhandlers discourage aggressive panhandling anyway.75 Panhandlers exercise some influence over one another's behavior, to minimize complaints and keep police from intervening.76 Enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws can serve to reinforce the informal norms because aggressive panhandling by the few makes panhandling less profitable for others.77

Enforcement Responses

Whether or not you emphasize enforcement of laws that regulate panhandling, it is important that the laws be able to survive legal challenge. Police should have valid enforcement authority to bolster other responses they use, including issuing warnings to panhandlers.60 Laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling or panhandling in specified areas are more likely to survive legal challenge than those that prohibit all panhandling. If enforcement of panhandling laws will be a key component of your strategy, and if you think the panhandling laws you rely on are vulnerable to legal challenge (or if you want to draft a new panhandling law), you should consult legal counsel to help you draft and propose new legislation. There are a number of model panhandling ordinances61 and legal commentaries on the constitutionality of panhandling laws62 in the literature. See Appendix A for a list and brief summary of some of the leading cases on the constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it.

Warning panhandlers and ordering them to ”move along“ are perhaps the most common police responses to panhandling.63 Many police beat officers develop working relationships with regular panhandlers; they use a mix of formal and informal approaches to keeping panhandling under control.64 Most officers do not view panhandling as a serious matter, and are reluctant to devote the time necessary to arrest and book offenders.65 Moreover, even when they have the authority to issue citations and release the offenders, most officers realize that panhandlers are unlikely to either appear in court or pay a fine.66 Prosecutors are equally unlikely to prosecute panhandling cases, typically viewing them as an unwise use of scarce prosecutorial resources.67

Panhandler arrests are rare,68,† but when they occur, this is the typical scenario: An officer issues a panhandler a summons or citation that sets a court date or specifies a fine. The panhandler fails to appear in court or fails to pay the fine. A warrant is issued for the panhandler's arrest. The police later arrest the panhandler after running a warrant check during a subsequent encounter. The panhandler is incarcerated for no more than a couple of days, sentenced to time already served by the court, and released.69

† Goldstein (1993) estimated that police made arrests for panhandling in only about 1 percent of all police/panhandler encounters.

Because prosecutors and judges are unlikely to view isolated panhandling cases as serious matters, it is advisable to prepare and present to the court some background information on panhandling's overall impact on the community. A problem impact statement can help prosecutors and judges understand the overall negative effect the seemingly minor offense of panhandling is having on the community.70 In the United Kingdom, police can apply to the courts for an ”antisocial behavior order“ against individuals or groups as one means of controlling their persistent low-level offending.71Violations of the orders can result in relatively severe jail sentences.† It is unknown how effective the orders have been in controlling panhandling.

† British antisocial behavior orders are similar in some respects to American restraining and nuisance abatement orders.

1.      Prohibiting aggressive panhandling. Laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling are more likely to survive legal challenge than laws that prohibit all panhandling, and are therefore to be encouraged.72 A growing number of jurisdictions have enacted aggressive-panhandling laws, most within the past 10 years.†† Enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws can be difficult, partly because few panhandlers behave aggressively, and partly because many victims of aggressive panhandling do not report the offense to police or are unwilling to file a complaint. Police can use proactive enforcement methods such as having officers serve as decoys, giving panhandlers the opportunity to panhandle them aggressively.73 Some agencies have provided officers with special legal training before enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws.74 Enforcing other laws panhandlers commonly violate—those regarding drinking in public, trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc.—can help control some aspects of the panhandling problem.

†† Among the jurisdictions to have enacted aggressive-panhandling laws are the states of Hawaii and California, and the cities of San Francisco; Seattle; Minneapolis; Albuquerque, N.M.; Atlanta; Baltimore; Cincinnati; Dallas; Tulsa, Okla.; and Washington, D.C.

Police need not heavily enforce aggressive-panhandling laws in order to control panhandling; the informal norms among most panhandlers discourage aggressive panhandling anyway.75 Panhandlers exercise some influence over one another's behavior, to minimize complaints and keep police from intervening.76 Enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws can serve to reinforce the informal norms because aggressive panhandling by the few makes panhandling less profitable for others.77

Aggressive-panhandling laws typically include the following specific prohibitions:

·         confronting someone in a way that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm;

·         touching someone without his or her consent;

·         continuing to panhandle or follow someone after he or she has refused to give money;

·         intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe passage of a person or vehicle;

·         using obscene or abusive language toward someone while attempting to panhandle him or her; and

·         acting with intent to intimidate someone into giving money.78

2.      Prohibiting panhandling in specified areas. Many courts have held that laws can restrict where panhandling occurs. Panhandlers are increasingly being prohibited from panhandling:

·         near ATMs;

·         on public transportation vehicles and near stations and stops;

·         near business entrances/exits;

·         on private property, if posted by the owner; and

·         on public beaches and boardwalks.79

One legal commentator has proposed a novel approach to regulating panhandling: zoning laws that would strictly prohibit panhandling in some areas, allow limited panhandling in other areas, and allow almost all panhandling in yet other areas.80 The literature does not report any jurisdiction that has adopted this approach as a matter of law, though clearly, police officers informally vary their enforcement depending on community tolerance levels in different parts of their jurisdiction.

3.      Prohibiting interference with pedestrians or vehicles. Some jurisdictions have enacted laws that specifically prohibit impeding pedestrians' ability to walk either by standing or by lying down in the way. Enforcement can be difficult where such laws require police to establish the panhandler's intent to obstruct others. The city of Seattle drafted a law that eliminated the need to establish intent, and that law survived a legal challenge.81 Where panhandling occurs on roads, as car window-washing usually does, enforcing laws that prohibit interfering with motor vehicle traffic can help control the problem.82

4.      Banning panhandlers from certain areas as a condition of probation. Because panhandling's viability depends so heavily on good locations, banning troublesome panhandlers from those locations as a condition of probation, at least temporarily, might serve to discourage them from panhandling and, perhaps, compel them to consider legitimate employment or substance abuse treatment.83 Convicted panhandlers might also be temporarily banned from publicly funded shelters.84 Alternatively, courts could use civil injunctions and restraining orders to control chronic panhandlers' conduct, although actual use of this approach does not appear in the literature.85 Obviously, police will require prosecutors' endorsements and judicial approval to advance these sorts of responses.

5.      Sentencing convicted panhandlers to appropriate community service. Some jurisdictions have made wide use of community service sentences tailored to the particular offender and offense.86For example, officers in St. Louis asked courts to sentence chronic panhandlers to community service cleaning the streets, sidewalks and alleys in the area where they panhandled.87

6.      Requiring panhandlers to obtain solicitation permits. Some cities, including Wilmington, Del., and New Orleans, have at some time required panhandlers and window washers to obtain solicitation permits, just as permits are required from street vendors and others who solicit money in public.88,† Little is known about the effectiveness of such permit schemes.

† Licensing schemes for beggars reportedly have existed in England as far back as 1530 (Teir 1993)[Full Text]. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994) has published guidance on drafting laws enabling permit systems, though the language seems designed to inhibit panhandling, rather than allow it.

Public Education Responses

7.      Discouraging people from giving money to panhandlers, and encouraging them to give to charities that serve the needy. In all likelihood, if people stopped giving money to panhandlers, panhandling would cease.89 Public education campaigns are intended to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers. They typically offer three main arguments: 1) panhandlers usually use the money to buy alcohol and drugs, rather than goods and services that will improve their condition; 2) giving panhandlers small amounts of money is insufficient to address the underlying circumstances that cause them to panhandle; and 3) social services are available to meet panhandlers' food, clothing, shelter, health care, and employment needs. Some people do not understand the relationship between panhandling and substance abuse, or are unaware of available social services, however obvious these factors may seem to police.90 Public education messages have been conveyed via posters, pamphlets, movie trailers, and charity collection points.91 A poster campaign was an important element of the New York City Transit Authority's effort to control subway panhandling.92 In Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., special parking meters were used as collection points for charities that serve the needy.93 Some police officers have invested a lot of their own time making personal appeals to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers.94 Some cities, such as Evanston, Ill., have hired trained civilians to make such appeals.95 Not everyone will be persuaded by the appeals; some will undoubtedly perceive them as uncaring.

8.      Using civilian patrols to monitor and discourage panhandling. In Baltimore, a business improvement district group hired police-trained, uniformed, unarmed civilian public-safety guides to intervene in low-level disorder incidents, and to radio police if their warnings were not heeded.96 Portland, Ore., developed a similar program,97 as did Evanston.98

9.      Encouraging people to buy and give panhandlers vouchers, instead of money. Some communities have instituted programs whereby people can buy and give panhandlers vouchers redeemable for food, shelter, transportation, or other necessities, but not for alcohol or tobacco.† Typically, a private nonprofit organization prints and sells the vouchers and serves as the broker between buyers and merchants. Some vouchers are printed in a way that makes them difficult to counterfeit. Vouchers are often accompanied with printed information about where they can be redeemed and what social services are available to the needy. Window signs and flyers are commonly used to advertise voucher programs. There is some risk, however, that panhandlers will exchange the vouchers for money through a black market,99 or that few people will buy the vouchers, as has been reported in some jurisdictions.100

† The earliest reported program was in Los Angeles. Other cities where voucher programs have been instituted include Berkeley, Santa Cruz and San Francisco, Calif.; Nashville; Memphis; New Haven; Portland, Ore.; Chicago; Seattle; Boulder, Colo.; New York; and Edmonton, Alberta (Ellickson 1996; New York Times 1993; Wall Street Journal 1993). Some communities have considered and rejected voucher programs (Evanston Police Department 1995).[Full Text]

I hope this information is helpful and would like to share it with those on the City Council who are wondering what to do about the homeless residents in our city. I’d also like your input. 

How Do You Want Your Tax Dollars Spent?

I shared this reflection at Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace and gave them postcards to send to their elected officials. If you aren't happy about how your tax dollars are being spent, I suggest you do the same. Meanwhile, here are my thoughts about taxation. 

Most Americans don't like taxes, for lots of reasons. Surveys indicate that half of Americans think they are overtaxed, and around 4 % think they are under-taxed. Most Americans believe that 40% of the taxes they pay are wasted; and they may be right, if you consider the military a waste of money.  Historically, taxes have been association with war and governmental oppression. “No taxation without representation,” was the war cry of American revolutionaries. Empires from Rome to Peru taxed their citizens to finance armies and wars. 

But taxes also have a beneficial aspects, especially in democracies where citizens can decide how they want their taxes spent. Taxes pay for education, health care, housing and infrastructure like roads and bridges. Europeans are taxed more than Americans, but don’t mind as much since they actually get many positive benefits. In his book “United States of Europe,” T.R. Reid says:

Beside universal health care, the typical European also gets a lot more for their taxes – including a free university education, paid maternity and paternity leaves for everyone, clean and efficient public transportation, retirement security for all, and so on. So ironically, the reason many people in the U.S. hate taxes more than Europeans may be because we pay so little in them and get comparatively so little for them in return. If we paid more taxes like the Europeans do, and then got many more important and obvious social and economic benefits, we would probably see the connections between taxes and government benefits more clearly – and so resent our taxes less. Strange but true.

A major reason we get so little for our taxes is that half of our tax revenue goes to war. Recently, my wife was questioned about this statistic by her students. They told her that their professors said only 25% of our taxes go to the military. That’s because they were using the government pie chart that includes social security payments as a tax. Social security is not a tax but a pension plan that pays back the money it takes out of payroll. What we pay to social security cannot be used for any purpose other than retirement benefits. The pie chart below shows what is called “discretionary spending.” This is a more accurate way of assessing how our tax dollars are prioritized. As you see, half of our discretionary taxes go to fight wars.

I did a little research and discovered that Belgium pays the highest tax rate in Europe. A Belgian earning $100,000 per year pays on average $34,000 in taxes. An American earning $100,000 pays only $24,000 per year--$10,000 less. But the Belgian gets free health care, which now costs Americans an average of $10,000 per year. In addition, Belgian also receives free higher education, which costs Americans between $9,500 and $32,500 per year, depending on whether you go for a private or public university. I don’t want to imply Belgium is perfect. Belgium promises housing for all, but still has a homeless problem. So it’s not Utopia, but Belgium does a lot better than the United States in providing economic security for most of its citizens. No one in Europe goes bankrupt because of medical expenses. Around a million Americans still go bankrupt each year because of medical bills. Before Obamacare, it was around 2 million.

Those who object to paying taxes to support the military sometimes become tax resisters. My wife Kathleen was a Methodist minister with Quakerish tendencies who tried this approach, but found that the IRS put a lien on her bank account and charged her fines and interest. She decided it wasn’t worth it. My hard-core peace activist friend David Hartsough is a tax resister and considers the fines and interest simply the cost of having a conscience. I respect David’s integrity, but I have chosen a different approach. I make sure that on Tax Day I let my elected officials know how I want my taxes to be spent.

Surveys reveal that American are generally clueless about how their tax dollars are spent. Most underestimate how much is spent on the military and overestimate how much is spent on welfare programs and foreign aid. Recent surveys show that education was named as a priority by 51% of Americans, followed by health care at 37% and national defense at 30%. In other words, most Americans would like their tax dollars allocated in ways similar to how they are allocated in Belgium and other European socialist democracies. Unfortunately, our elected officials have other priorities, based on the priorities of their corporate sponsors and wealthy donors.

Ted Cruz, for example, wants to do away with the progressive income tax and have a flat tax. He appeals to populism: Wouldn’t you like to avoid hiring a tax accountant and simply pay your taxes on a postcard? It sounds nice, but most economic experts agree that a flat tax would cause a vast transfer of wealth from the middle class to the 1%, and dry up the funding for most social programs that help the poor.   Cruz promises to cut the government by two thirds by hiring only one government employee for every three who retire or leave their jobs. This would suit the Koch brothers and other Tea Partyers who believe that the only legitimate role of government should be to fund the military, the police and prisons.

Today you have a chance to let your elected officials know how you'd like your tax dollars spent. That's why I recommend that you go to fcnl.org. This site has all the information you need to make a difference.

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute": a letter to Pasadena's Mayor and City officials about our how to treat our homeless residents

This is my second letter to the Mayor and City Council about proposed ordinances that would make it illegal for homeless people to sleep on the street in most areas of the city and to panhandle "aggressively."  If you share my concern that these ordinances penalizing homeless people are unfair and counterproductive, please write to Mayor Terry Tornek at  ttornek@cityofpasadena.net. 

It seems ironic that our City Council’s deliberations on measures that would make it illegal for homeless residents to sleep in most areas of our city and to panhandle “aggressively” took place at a time when All Saints Episcopal Church was honoring Rabbi Leonard Beerman, one of the great spiritual leaders of our time. Rabbi Beerman was a deeply compassionate man, honored by people of conscience and of all faiths, who worked with All Saints to refurbish skid row housing and provide decent living accommodations for the poor.

“Rabbi Leonard Beerman refused to meet injustice with silent complicity. Even when he felt called to take positions that he knew would be unpopular, he sensed a higher demand to serve as a witness to human suffering and to back up his impassioned words with principled action,” said Rabbi Chasen of Leo Beck Temple at Rabbi Beerman’s memorial service.

The Hebrew Bible addresses all people of faith when it calls us to speak out on behalf of the needy. As a Christian and a Quaker, I take to heart these words:

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy

  — Proverbs 31:8-9

Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people….What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?

  — Isaiah 10:1-3

As someone who has worked with homeless folk for many years, is married to a passionate advocate for the homeless, and has a formerly homeless person living in our home, I am deeply concerned that the City is making a grave mistake by enacting ordinances that could cost the city millions of dollars in affordable housing funding, exacerbate the homelessness problem, and produce few if any positive outcomes.  It might even result in costly lawsuits against the City. Pasadena has done a lot better than adjacent cities in its treatment of homeless people, and has actually reduced its homeless population, but it still has a long way to go, as you know.

The City Council claims that complaints about homeless behavior have been rising, but it hasn't offered a reason why. To solve a problem, you need to know its causes. Who are the aggressive panhandlers? Mentally disturbed individuals? Substance abusers? Former prison inmates? Refugees from LA’s failed homeless policies? Instead of studying the problem and figuring out how best to deal with it, the city’s immediate response is to give the police new "tools" to deal with homeless people. "Tools" is a euphemism. A tool is something benign and constructive. Arresting, fining and incarcerating homeless people--and depriving them of their right to sleep at night--isn't a tool. To a homeless person, and to any person of conscience, being arrested by an armed police officer and being denied a place to sleep seems more like a weapon than a tool. 

If the City's goal is to reduce and ultimately to end homelessness, the proposed ordinances seem like a step backwards, not forwards. Here are some reasons why:

1) By making "camping" by homeless people illegal, the City runs the risk of law suit. According to the Jones vs. Los Angeles case, filed by the ACLU, it is illegal to forbid homeless people to sleep on the streets if no other shelter is available. It is not only illegal, it is against human decency and morality. Does the City want to run this risk to its pocketbook and reputation?

2) As our Housing Director Bill Huang points out, this policy could put at risk millions of dollars in HUD funding that could help alleviate homelessness by providing affordable housing. Can we afford to lose affordable housing funds when 26,000 Pasadenans are on the Section 8 waiting list? 

3) What does this anti-camping and anti-panhandling program hope to accomplish? This was not made clear. If  homeless individuals can't sleep in public parks or in business areas and are driven out by police, the only places left are residential areas, where schools are located. Councilman Tyron Hampton has pointed out that this is not acceptable, and I'm sure most parents would agree. Therefore, there will be nowhere in the City where homeless folk can sleep, which is a violation of Jones vs. LA. Furthermore, arresting and fining homeless people will mean that many will have to panhandle more aggressively to pay their fines. Or if they are jailed, they will be more traumatized and difficult when they are released. What mentally ill or substance-abusing homeless people need is compassionate treatment, not jail time or fines.

4) The anti-panhandling law seems to me to be immoral as long as the City doesn't provide food and shelter for all its homeless residents. One of the  myths I hear repeated at Council meetings is that homeless people don't need to panhandle because there are enough services in the City so that every homeless person can have shelter and food. What evidence do you have for this claim?  Anyone who has done a homeless count in this city can testify that many homeless people have desperate needs that the city is not meeting. For example, when I did a homeless count, I met an African American homeless woman living right next to City Hall who was blind and had just been sexually molested. Somehow the City had overlooked her need for safe shelter and food. She told us, "I'm black and blind and a woman. No one gives a F about me. " Even receiving SSI doesn’t provide enough money for most disabled people to live without panhandling. I became good friends with another handicapped woman named Melissa who lives in the LA area and receives $900 a month in SSI, which wasn't enough to pay for rent and food.  Melissa is legally blind and in a wheel chair. While she waited seven years to receive a Section 8 voucher, she had to panhandle in order to have food and pay rent (she was paying $1200 a month to live in a "cheap" motel since no apartments would even rent to her). No doubt some homeless people in Pasadena are in similar straits. Even though we do a much better than many adjacent cities, I question whether our city provides enough services for all homeless people to live without panhandling. Remembering my friend Melissa who had to panhandle to survive, I give to homeless people whenever I can. And I feel it’s immoral for the city to penalize panhandlers unless it is sure it has provided safe shelter and food for all its homeless residents.

I realize that the ordinance makes only “aggressive” panhandling illegal. But what do we mean by “aggressive”? Does it mean an overt act? In that case, current laws would cover that offense. But it appears that the ordinance would penalize a homeless person not for an overt action, but for seeming to be threatening. Given the racial profiling in our city, I have legitimate concerns that this law will target mainly people of color who appear threatening to those who are white and privileged. Needless to say, such racial profiling is illegal, though often hard to prove.

It should also be noted that many homeless people do not panhandle. They survive by scavenging for food and recyclables. Some cities fine people who rummage for food or sleep in their cars. This seems to me immoral. By making it illegal to sleep on the street, we are penalizing the most desperately poor in our City. 

As I have pointed out in a previous letter, homeless people are currently sleeping in front of an animal shelter near the Del Mar station. The current ordinance would make it illegal for homeless people to sleep even at this location. Do we want the reputation of being a city that cares more about stray animals than about unhoused people?

5) It is a lie that a cIty as prosperous as Pasadena doesn't have resources to house homeless folk. Whenever the city wants to do an enhancement project, like renovating the Rose Bowl, it finds plenty of money to do so. Choosing to penalize homeless people for aggressive panhandling and sleeping on the street is expensive. No one has calculated how much these ordinances will cost the City, but they probably will not be cheap, especially if there are lawsuits. LA spends $88 million of its $100 million homeless budget on law enforcement, with dismal results. Does Pasadena want to follow LA's bad example? 

Instead of spending money on making it a crime for the poor to sleep on the street or to panhandle, the City would be wiser to invest more funds in Housing First and similar successful programs. These programs could be funded by those who have the means to do so. For example, businesses could pay a fee or some of the money from parking meters and our boutique hotels could be set aside to help the homeless. As you know, Old Town was created through redevelopment funds. 20% of which were supposed to go to create affordable housing to replace the single occupancy hotels where indigents had lived. Instead, the City lobbied Sacramento to get an exemption from this law and hundreds of millions of dollars were diverted to the pension funds of the police and fire department. Old Town was built on the backs of the poor. It therefore seems only fair that the businesses and patrons in Old Town who benefit from redevelopment should help subsidize housing for those who were displaced.

I have heard that Air B&Bs want to be taxed and their taxes go into a fund for affordable housing instead of the Convention Center, as is the case with other hotel fees. That seems like another practical solution given the current problem, which is a lack of affordable housing.

The Housing Department has also made excellent recommendations for utilizing unused land to build permanent supportive housing, but Council members have balked. As Council member John Kennedy pointed out, only one member has had the political courage to stand up against NIMBYism. 

I don't want to minimize the problem. It is true that some homeless people have mental and social problems that can be very vexing. Living on the street can drive even a sane person crazy. It is also true that some homeless people act out in ways that can seem scary. Rather than punish them, what makes sense is to give the police more training in psychology and hire more psychologists and social workers who can work with mentally disturbed homeless people. Housing Works does this very effectively and could be consulted as a model. This is what is done in countries like Sweden, with excellent results. Let's look to Sweden, not LA, as our policy model and to the Bible as our moral guide.

Follow the way of love: a report on vocal ministry

My Meeting has been going through a challenging phase in which there have been complaints about vocal ministry to Ministry and Council. This happens not infrequently at Friends' meeting since everyone is allowed to speak, and what is said is not always to everyone's liking. Sometimes a wave of complaints arise about vocal ministry: messages are too long, too frequent, too political, or not sufficiently deep and spiritual.  Like El Nino, these seasons of discontent come and go, and can sometimes be stormy. I am pleased that to clear the air, my Meeting made the decision to have an adult study on vocal ministry, using a Quaker process known as "worship sharing," which I report about in this blog.

However, I'd first like to place this challenge in a biblical context. During the Bible study that proceeded this adult study, we read Paul's advice to the church in Corinth about how to conduct meeting for worship:

When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue [ecstatic utterance], it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted.and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace....Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. (Corinthians 12: 26-40)

When I first read this, I was actually in Corinth, on a boat cruise with Christians traveling in the footsteps of Paul, and I thought, "Wow! This sounds just like a Quaker meeting." 

I realized that early Friends were seeking to follow the example of the early church and probably used this text as a justification for their seemingly unique mode of worship. 

As this passage makes clear, early Christians did not have a set order of worship, or a priest, or even a minister. They gathered together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, spoke in "tongues" (i.e. ecstatic utterances) and allowed people to sing hymns, preach or prophesy, as Spirit moved them. Sometimes these worship services became too ecstatic and rowdy, so Paul laid down some guidelines, the most important being "all things must be done properly [sometimes translated "reverently"] and in good order."

It is worth noting that Paul uses the words "prophesy" and "revelation," which were important concepts to early Christians as well as to early Friends. "Prophesy" didn't mean a prediction; it meant a message revealed by the Holy Spirit to encourage, challenge and/or edify a congregation. Prophets also spoke truth to power.

Jews believed that Malachi was the last of the twelve prophets, and that the spirit of prophecy had ceased. Many Christians felt the same way: the Bible was a closed book, and revelation ceased with the Book of Revelation. But the prophet Joel predicted that in the Last Days, when the Messiah came, the spirit of prophesy would be revived, the Holy Spirit would be poured onto all people, and revelations from God would continue:

"I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions." (Joel 2:28)

According to Joel, women as well as men, children as well as elders, would have the gift or prophesy during the Last Days. Early Christians (see Act 2:17) as well as early Friends believed that this prophetic age was initiated by the coming of Christ and  of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost. Fox believed that since Christ had come to teach His people directly, women as well as men have the gift of prophesy. Therefore, women as well as men could have "revelations" (direct inspirations from God) and give vocal ministry during Quaker meetings for worship.

During our Bible study, we were struck by Paul's statement "each person" has a part to play in a meeting for worship, that is, each participant is free to contribute, just as in a Quaker meeting.

Paul later adds that women should remain silent during times of worship, but Quakers questioned that teaching of Paul for biblical, social and cultural reasons. See Margaret Fell's "Women's Speaking Justified."

Quakers took to heart Paul's recommendation that there should be an interval of silence between sharing so that those present can ponder what was given. 

When Paul says "the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets," he implies that those who have the gift of prophesy must discern whether revelations given during times of worship are genuine or not.  He doesn't say how this discernment process takes place.

For early Quakers, discernment often took place on Second Day meetings in which elders gathered and reflected on the worship that took place the day before. Those who gave vocal ministry were usually part of this discernment process. We know from records of this time that Friends eldered one another, usually in a loving way.

That's what happened at our adult study on Sunday, April 3 . Around 16 or 17 of us gathered together for a time of "worship sharing" in which each had a brief time to respond to three queries (open-ended questions) regarding vocal ministry:

• How do I determine if thoughts in my head are ministry or not?
• What do I do before I rise to speak?
• How do I know if my message was “right” for meeting?  What indications do I get either internally or from others?

Everyone present who gave vocal ministry described a similar experience: a feeling in the body, such as a more rapidly beating heart, or a queasiness in the pit of the stomach, combined with a sense that one must speak, that a power greater than oneself requires speaking out.

Some spoke of rehearsing what they were going to say before speaking, while others said they had no definite idea of what they were going to say, and scarcely remembered afterward what they said.

No one spoke of preparing vocal ministry before meeting for worship: that is clearly un-Quakerly. In every case, Friends said that vocal ministry arose spontaneously, and unexpectedly, during meeting for worship. Most spoke of resisting or at least questioning the impulse to speak; and some said they were pleased when someone else gave a message similar to what they felt led to give, or else a message completely different but more appropriate.

It was also interesting to note that very few were completely comfortable with how they expressed their vocal ministry. Some felt that they didn't say everything they were supposed to say, and left out something important. Others said they felt they may have spoken too long. Another was concerned about being afraid of what Friends might think of her ministry, but spoke any way because she felt God was leading her to speak. Having been part of an Evangelical tradition where women aren't often given an opportunity to speak during worship, she feels she finally has freedom to give vocal ministry. However, she added, "It  takes courage to speak."

One Friend confessed that she sometimes concluded her Spirit-led vocal ministry with a joke that undercut what she was saying. "This is my ego speaking," she said.

One Friends said that he seldom gave vocal ministry, maybe three times in five years, and he was nonetheless "eldered" because he used the phrase "as another Friend has said," in his ministry. The Friend who was criticized for using this phrase didn't seem happy about it. 

When my turn came to share, I waited until I became aware of my heart beating, which is for me a sign from Spirit. I also inwardly heard and repeated biblical passage that often comes to me: "May the words of my lips and the meditations of my heart be acceptable to you, O God." I said that my experience of giving vocal ministry is similar to what others describe, except I used the word "God," which few others used. I said that when I feel a strong impulse to speak, I ask for Divine guidance and wait for a response. I ask myself: "Is this message just for me, or for the whole meeting? Are You sure You want me to speak? Should I speak now, or wait?" Sometimes when I wait, someone else gives the message I felt led to give, and I feel at peace. At other times, someone gives a different but more appropriate message, and I also feel at peace.  

I also said that people sometimes compliment and sometimes criticize my messages. It feels good to be affirmed, and it is sometimes painful to be criticized, but I try to remember that what matters most is not the opinions of Friends but whether or not I was faithful to God in giving vocal ministry. "May the words of my lips, and the meditations of my heart, be acceptable in YOUR sight, O God."

I know that many Friends in our Meeting aren't comfortable with God language, just as they aren't comfortable with Jesus language, but I felt that I needed to be honest about my spiritual life. and how important it is that I follow and honor God.  I spend a lot of my day having an inner dialogue with the Divine, and also have experiences of the Divine Presence that are just as real as my experiences with people and material things. I am grateful I felt free to express what is essential to who I am.

One of the important features of worship sharing is that each person has a chance to speak their truth without being criticized or challenged by others. As a result, there is a sense of safety and people usually feel free to be honest with each other. 

I was  pleased that towards the end of our session, an elder in our Meeting spoke up about the importance of being non-judgmental. This birthright Friend from Philly generally doesn't say much, but when he does, his words are usually full of wit and wisdom. This time he was unusually vocal, even passionate, in expressing his view that we should be accepting of people who give vocal ministry. We shouldn't judge. We should listen with compassion. Another Friend expressed similar views, with deep feeling.

I am glad our session ended on this positive note. I was reminded of how Paul began his chapter on meeting for worship: 

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy." (1 Corinthians 14:1)

    Paul's phrase: "Follow the way of love..." speaks to my condition. People come to worship for many reasons--some are going through personal struggles, some are seeking God or inner peace, and some are seeking community.  But  whatever our reason for coming to worship, I feel we need to "follow the way of love." As Paul says elsewhere in his letter, "Prophesy will pass....Faith, hope, and love are what last, and the most important thing is love." I felt that by listening to each other without criticism, our worship sharing session on vocal ministry helped us to follow way of love.

"Dreams come true": an update on our joint ministry

My dear wife Jill just sent out this letter to her supporters, which I'd like to share with you.  I am deeply grateful to the Prince of Peace who brought us together so we could help bring God's beloved community "on earth as it is in heaven." As you can see, we're having fun as we seek to do our part to make God's dreams come true.

Jill’s update: Dreams do come true: APU, Flo, Brother Wesley and wide open doors to share the Good News of Christ and witness to the resurrection all around us.

Dear friends,

               

Anthony, my sweet and godly husband likes to learn and recite biblical passages by heart. Since we married on 9/10/11, when we first awaken, Anthony often quotes these prayers:

O Lord, open my lips; and my mouth shall proclaim thy praise.  Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.  Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not your holy spirit from me. Restore in me the joy of your salvation; and sustain me with your bountiful spirit.  (Psalm 51)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,  1 Peter 1:3

God is indeed renewing, restoring and sustaining Anthony and me to a living hope and witness to the resurrection.  (seehttps://vimeo.com/160025627 about this year’s Palm Sunday Peace Parade where we met five years ago—it explains the boat!)

I am awed at how God puts within us dreams, how they seem to die, and then how God quietly causes them to be reborn, like a blade of grass or a tiny flower coming up between uneven sidewalk cracks. Here are some examples:

I am always overflowing with hundreds of ways to address our nation’s housing crisis, so four years ago I asked God for a classroom of students where these ideas could flow. After two attempts of offering such a course at my alma mater, Denver Seminary, an unexpected opportunity presented itself at Azusa Pacific University to teach one evening a week eight Social Work grad students. I am not only teaching, I am learning tons. 

Another long-standing dream: for an admin assistant and ministry partner to join my mission, and God is answering! Florence Annang, a godly woman from Ghana, Africa, deeply in love with Jesus and full of God’s word, whom I’ve known for 12 years, felt God telling her to reach out to me. She runs an afterschool program for children and youth (in which I have years of experience), is now helping me part time with admin and has applied to Missions Door!  Pray for God’s leading and provision. 

The N. Fair Oaks Empowerment Initiative—with a goal to resurrect hope and transform a neglected corner of Pasadena—voted last week to partner with the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition (CSC). When our team met with CSC Brother Wesley started us off with an original gospel hip hop number (this 6’ man calls himself our son in Christ!). And Renee, an emerging leader below, led the agenda. It became obvious how the goals of CSC aligned with a least half of the stated concerns and dreams of the 150 people we surveyed last year: to minimize and slow traffic, to create safety, less crime, and more parking. CSC has successfully changed parallel parking to angled parking, added pocket parks and bike lanes—all serving to address these concerns, and resurrect this neglected area. CSC resonated with our theme verse:

“Once again men and women of ripe old age will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each of them with cane in hand because of their age. The city streets will be filled with boys and girls playing there.”  Zechariah 8:4

In my last update, I mentioned how we would be praying at the February Pasadena Unified School District board meeting. God send us seven key spiritual leaders and pastors stood and prayed during their three minutes allotted to speak.  It felt like a true worship experience as we sensed the hearts of some board members entering into prayer with us. But before resurrection comes come crucifixion.  The drama at this month’s board meeting reminded me of all the confusion and hopelessness that Jesus’s disciples felt during Holy Week, with teachers impatiently chanting “Settle now” and a team of Harleys revving up their motor cycles to get the attention of board members. Like prophets of old, who warned the kings and leaders to do justice and love mercy, and prayed for Israel’s leaders, we keep praying. Right now it feels like a boxing ring, with folks lining up and taking sides. I’m praying for a safe place to be created with fair ground rules so folks can feel heard and taken seriously. But as Tony Compolo says, it’s still Friday and I believe that resurrection Sunday is coming for our school district.

Every day we are a witness God’s resurrection and a renewal of hope. Anthony and I have been given the opportunity to multiply that hope through many workshops and speaking engagements, (including speaking at a retreat on Easter weekend in San Diego—see below—where we shared about the world conference of Quakers in Peru in January, how we share our home with an ex-homeless friend and how Mark is helping us to green our home—lowering our carbon footprint by 80% and cutting our water use in half, we grow food—while sharing our abundance with friends and neighbors.) We are also on various committees and teams. For example, our local congressman has asked me to be on his advisory committee for housing. I think folks are amazed to see this missionary with such an expertise in affordable housing. I even surprise myself. The doors for beautiful ministry are wide open for us, we daily rejoice and give thanks for opportunities to share the good news of Christ with neighbors and friends and wherever we go.   

For those of you who have faithfully given to my work over the years, thank you!  Please continue. Honorariums and income as an adjunct faculty member help, but this only meets a small portion of our need now that Flo is coming on board. If you feel moved to give and you haven’t yet had a chance to partner with us in this way, below is the information on how to give.

With much joy, Jill

Jill Shook and Anthony Manousos, 1628 N. Garfield Ave. Pasadena, CA 91104  :626) 675-1316jill@makinghousinghappen.com

Send Support to: Missions Door, 2530 Washington Street, Denver, CO 80205  To set up direct debit and other convenient financial plans call: (303)308-1818 or go to:  http://www.missionsdoor.org/missionaries/shook-jill