City Council - workshop

by six feet or under. That's where we're talking and trying to redirect all the public safety concerns regarding panhandling and people that are using medians other than that are described for use, meaning transit from one point of the street to the other. This is Duration time that is going to be spent in that area that is now becoming a public safety aspect where the person, whomever it will be taking up space on that medium is now putting themselves at risk on a high volume highway with exceed speeds exceeding 30 miles an hour where they can fall off the medium, especially in this extreme heat. That becomes a very realistic option. And then also posing the hazards to the motorists that are on there as well. Undue or unneeded hazards putting someone's life and safety at risk. So that is my primary concern. regarding the panhandling aspect of it, not to be confused with anything First Amendment, just targeted specific areas that pose as the high-risk zones that we should address as a non-occupant allowed area other than transit, even defined by transit time of up to two light cycles. So we're considerate and we're looking at realistic use for people to be able to use a medium in the way it was intended, not to try and skate around the use of and now put themselves at risk or motorists at risk. So that was the main aspect there. And then also making sure that whatever is done to try and handle that, that we give our law enforcement some kind of, um, ability to have teeth behind it for enforcement, meaning to have magistrate, uh, help support this aspect to discourage the use of, uh, so, so whereas the normal ordinance citations have been discarded, if we can have in front of a magistrate that gives a little bit more, legitimacy to it and the seriousness that the city is taking into account for public safety. So we can discourage those who might feel that it's not enforceable. Um, so, uh, that also would be allowing for an education period of up to 30 days so that we can then help educate the public. So it's not just the first immediate turn on effect where those who might not realize the ordinance is now possibly in effect. This is a new education aspect, having a visible signage in these potential roadway areas to help notify those that this is not an area they can use. So multiple aspects to educate, um, promote and make aware all citizens that these areas are not to be used, uh, for, for means other than what they were intended for as public transit transit from one spot of the street to the other. So that's my major concern. And that's why I'd like to hear what the council has to speak on that behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Quadrus. I did extend that time by a minute, so if there's anybody else in this meeting that goes over their time, they will also get that same courtesy. All right, that was, Mr. Quadrus was the only person that I had sign up to give public input on this item. Is there anybody else that wishes to give public input on this item, Ms. B? And then if you wouldn't mind after, just make sure we get a card for record purposes. Thank you.

Good evening. So, I had a problem when this was first presented to the council to address panhandling of homeless people. Everyone is out in the medium. We saw it this weekend. They were fundraising. They've been doing it. I'd like for you all to share with us as you make this decision or have this discussion, how many accidents have we had where someone panhandling has been hit in the medium, fallen off of the medium into traffic? I think you should consider that as you consider how we're going to address it, and I think that it is more appropriate to see the holistic aspect of it and not just focus on what I'm gonna call criminalizing homeless behavior. Not focusing on it's okay when other people do it, but it's not okay when homeless people do it. That's problematic. If you're gonna address panhandling, then you need to address it in totality based on the problem it presents to all of us. So that's just my thought. And yes, I'll fill it out. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cooker. Sure. If you could. Yes, please. For our benefit. Yeah.

The proposed panhandling was not to deal with panhandling. It's about anybody, which would mean any people running for office. kids doing charity events. Any of those people are putting themselves at harm. So to clarify, the ordinance that we're trying to impose is public safety, not just people who are panhandling. This would be a complete across-the-board safety effort for all people that would be in those areas.

Thank you very much, Mr. Quedders. Thank you, Ms. Coker. All right, now we'll move on to the second part of this, which will be the laws and enforcement. Yes, sir.

Mr. Jernigan? You want us to speak on the panhandling or no?

You want to wait. Yeah, so what... What we're going to do in the way that I thought that this would be productive is have the public input first, then have the laws and enforcement that we have on books and that we can do, and then have proposals and discussion from counsel at the end of that. Does that sound good? Sound good? All right. So I'll turn this over to you, Mr. Martin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As it relates to the panhandling issue... Make sure you speak into the microphone, please.

We've had a lot of... Yeah, before we get going...

I was going to say, all the microphones seem very quiet.

Yeah. Make sure those are turned up to the maximum. We've had a lot of complaints here recently from the public. I want to make sure that everybody's speaking into their microphone tonight and that we're crystal clear.

Got it. As it relates to the panhandling issue, the city really does not have laws on the books that directly go to the issue itself. The city does enforce, obviously, the state uniform traffic code, and that's something that I would defer to Chief Butler on to discuss enforcement of the traffic code in and of itself. The avenues that the city has for it to address the issue are are fairly limited. If you address the matter neutrally as to all people who may be present in one of the, what I'm just gonna refer to as restricted zones or proposed restricted zones, either medians or areas adjacent to intersections but on the sidewalk. If you paint with too broad a brush, then you run the risk of the courts holding your ordinance to be overly broad and restricting First Amendment rights. So you've got that risk on one side of things. You also... have risks as it relates to the the time place and manner of the restriction that you're attempting to impose the The restricted areas or proposed restricted areas that we're discussing, portions of them have been considered to be traditional public forums. For example, sidewalks and intersections have traditionally been used by people who are exercising their First Amendment rights, whether it be, in the examples mentioned earlier too, promote a political candidacy to hold signs, bringing attention to a particular matter of controversy, or even a non-controversial matter. Courts have held that soliciting for funds is protected activity. So organizations that may be either soliciting funds at an intersection, Or elsewhere. I mean in a public park or something like that or maybe Distributing leaflets leafleting is also protected activity. So whatever the council would consider doing it would have to be extremely narrowly tailored the the the universe of First Amendment law as it relates to activities at traffic intersections And that's really what we're talking about is broad. And so there are a lot of activities that can take place and you would have to find a way to as narrowly as possible address the issue that is of concern to the city. One thing that Mr. Quadris did mention, I did find one case on point out of South Florida that's a recent case. It's only a trial level case. It's not been appealed. That's usually the place where cases are vetted and really someone, or if not someone, a court, a judge, really kind of goes through the reasoning of the trial court and vets it to determine whether it's solid reasoning or not. That case has not been appealed, but it's out of Pompano Beach. In that case, the trial court held that a very narrowly tailored ordinance in Pompano Beach that restricted Panhandling and other activities on medians of a certain width that were on highways of a certain size, and I think the size was three or more lanes on one side or the other of the median, that in that circumstance, the city could regulate activities in the median and restrict them. What is core to this is also not only narrowly tailoring whatever the solution or restriction is that the council would propose in an ordinance, but also very narrowly defining what the problem is that you're trying to address. So, a lot of what I'm doing as the council and the community go through this process of having a workshop and discussing the matter is I'm also listening because I'm trying to formulate a way if there is a consensus that narrowly defines the problem. And then from that narrowly defined problem allows a narrowly defined solution that would pass constitutional muster. And these are very fact-specific circumstances. In the case of, you know, that we're talking about in traffic, they need to be underpinned by data. I think Chief Butler probably has enough anecdotal data to discuss whether the risk is really there from a traffic and pedestrian standpoint for panhandling on the sidewalks and in the medians within the city's jurisdiction. So he may be able to address that, but that's kind of the lay of the land at the moment.

Chief, I would like for you to speak to the actual enforcement of, you know, we don't have anything on the books, but let's say that we did have a median rule, a minimum median rule and width rule in place to keep panhandling out of the center of the road, per se.

First, as far as a question that was asked, I'm not familiar with any pedestrian accidents involving any of the panhandlers in the last couple of years. So I could do research on that and find out if I'm wrong, but nothing comes to mind that I can think of. As far as the center, all we're going to do is push them to the sidewalks. And then they're going to be on the sidewalks on the side of the road doing the same thing they're currently doing in the median. Use the example of one of the high volume over by Walmart. They're in the center divider where the left turn lanes are. The vehicle stopped due to the red light on the left turn lanes. and that's when they walk up and down and tend to pass out their literature and try and collect from the people in the left turn lane. If we push them to the sidewalk, they're not gonna be in a right turn lane where vehicles can do right on red and they'll keep moving. So I think we were just gonna trade off one set of circumstances for another, and the attorney's better than I can, but I'm not familiar with anything that's gonna stop them from panhandling on the side of the road. over by the sidewalks. That's a public area.

Can you speak to that, Mr. Martin? The sidewalks? Sidewalks are essentially free speech zones.

I'm unaware of a community that has been able to successfully maintain a prohibition of panhandling on sidewalks through the court system, just universally. They may be able to restrict it at a particular area, like some communities have been able to restrict it at limited access highway on and off ramps, basically interstate on and off ramps, because of the nature of the traffic and speeds and so forth that are in that vicinity. But I don't know that that's universal. So, yes, to answer your question, sidewalks are difficult.

Okay. Anything further, gentlemen, before we move into council questions, comments? Okay. Council questions, comments, proposals. Mr. Carter. And then Mr. Jernigan. I've seen those, too.

So, obviously, we discussed it last time. This is a tricky problem every town seems to be trying to solve. But I don't think there's any point in sort of beating around the bush about what is bothering everyone. Right. Uh, from my experience, I've, I've had like five people call me in the last two weeks. I regularly have someone mentioned it to me. The, uh, the issue is, uh, these folks, regardless of their circumstances of which I'm not passing judgment are bothering people at red lights. They are potentially distractions. I don't know of, and I don't know if the chief is aware of any, uh, accidents caused by their distraction, uh, But certainly people standing around in the middle of the road is obviously a potential distraction that could cause something. But more or less what I hear from citizens is we want people to quit begging at the window at every red light throughout town. And also there are certain areas that have gotten very, very filthy and messy over there. Next to Winn-Dixie there's a bench where Winn-Dixie and Bay across. That at times has looked like a landfill. There's an area at the Bay and 90 split where oftentimes there's just garbage that, honestly, when they come in the morning, they seem to sprinkle it around and sometimes take it with them. But the perspective that I'm getting is citizens don't want to be bothered at every red light and would prefer people not be scattering garbage along our sidewalks and medians. So as far as getting narrow, I would say some sort of way of enforcing – the litter issue. And then it, it does seem to me that everything that I've read so far and most of what you have shared with us. And honestly, I don't have any interest in trying to stop people from being on sidewalks. I mean, it's sidewalks. Everybody does everything on sidewalks. I don't think there's a world in which you get to ban anybody from moving pretty much anything on sidewalks, even if it is obnoxious. And we've all probably seen recently the, the, uh, first amendment auditors that are going and making a hobby of being obnoxious on sidewalks. And, And police can't do anything about it, generally speaking. So, I mean, it's mostly garbage and bothering people. That seems to be the frustration about this particular thing. I think it seems like there's probably something we could end up doing about garbage. The bothering people part, unless the state changes its rules, like I'm not finding much evidence on my own. of what we can do. I certainly hope so. I mean, because truthfully, I understand what Mr. Chris is suggesting that you word it from a different angle, but at the same time, at the end of the day, there are areas that people are allowed to be currently and things they're allowed to do. and saying we don't want them to do it because they're annoying us and saying we don't want them to do it because it's dangerous is amounting to the same thing, we don't want them to do it. And I don't, for instance, since our last meeting, I went just as a bit of an exploratory exercise, to Gainesville and Jacksonville just to make sure I wasn't missing anything and if they do have laws on the books that regard public safety and stuff like that they're obviously not able to enforce them because they have this issue way more prevalently than we do all over both of those communities so it feels like every community is still in the same pickle I'm not seeing a solution but the problem is very clear from everyone I talk to people just don't want to be bothered and they wish there wasn't garbage all over these areas

Thank you, Chief. Mr. Jeringen, don't go too far, Chief, just in case somebody has a question for you.

Yeah. I'm in the same boat. I mean, this is like worldwide, and nobody has seemed to have solved this particular issue. And so I don't know how we... as a community here is going to be able to solve this without being some kind of liability, being sued. And I think a lot of times that's what a lot of people look for. They want you to come out there and tell them to do this and tell them to do that or get a law on the book and get sued in the process. So I understand everybody. I have been approached at a red light as well. I have been approached on 90. But by the same token, there's some good that comes out of that and there's some bad that comes out of that. For example, if there's a car wash from the children trying to raise money and things like that. That's good. They're all over the place out there. I don't know of anybody who's ever got struck by a car or fell out because it was too hot or whatever the case may be. So that's good. And then you have these people, and the car wash people, they come begging for money too. They either want their car, a truck, vehicle taken care of, or they'll donate monies. You understand? So I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is... I don't know if they're down on their luck or whatever the case may be, but they get out there. They aggravate the citizens. Sometimes we give them money. Sometimes we give them food, and they go on their way. I've seen one guy. I had gave him some money and I watched him as I come through the red light there. I watched him. He got in a, I want to say it was, what do you call this? I can't think of the car, but it was a really, really nice car. Acra. That's exactly right. And he got in that car and I'm like, what did I just do? You know, it's my fault. But they're the same people who's getting out there and ask them for money or they ask them for food. And what gets me is when a person is out there with an animal, if they're out there with an animal, I'm thinking about the animal. I'm not thinking about the person. And I want to make sure that animal has water and food. So I don't know how we're going to be able to do this. And it's, I mean, all over the world, not just this little city. It's all over. So I appreciate all the suggestions and recommendations that we're going to bounce around and talk about. However, the bottom line is they're still going to be able to do it.

I mean, that's it.

Ms. Young?

Oh, yes. Now, the concerns that I've gotten is, and it kind of relates to what Councilman Carter said, is the shopping carts. And there has to be, I know there was a time that there was some type of maybe a partnership with the grocery stores as to keeping these shopping carts at their properties. so i think that's the big thing because the shopping carts are full of loaded with you know different items and a lot of times it's dropping along or even with this full shopping cart just sitting um in in certain areas so if we can kind of um come up with something concerning the shopping carts That will be one help. But now as far as the humans, the human people, I don't know that we'll have the answer to that. And I heard Carter say he's from Jacksonville to where?

Gainesville.

Well, there's one little town I don't see it happening in. So you might want to take a little trip back east and let's see what's going on. Maybe we can talk. There's two small towns that I don't see this issue in, and we need to. talk with these people and see actually what they're doing. Yeah, I'm serious. Smaller towns are not having this issue. Smaller towns aren't having this issue. Well, that's one.

I don't see that in Baker County.

Margarita? Margarita is Baker County.

McClaney?

What do they have?

Live Oak ends up with a lot of cross-pollination of our panhandlers here. If it doesn't go well a week here, you'll find them over there the next week.

And it's almost a no-win because... Even if, say for instance, Jacksonville has the homeless shelter, homeless center, if we even initiated a homeless center, then we're going to get the homeless from all around. So it is a worldwide issue, and I don't think anyone has hit the target yet.

Ms. Harris? Mr. Carter?

Just to be clear, when I first got on the council a little over two years ago, we were actively repealing a rule that had been placed that we'd caught in a lawsuit for. To be clear, that was, that we repealed was basically no panhandling in the medians or something to that effect, right? And that's what we, I mean, it was a very simple, the thing that is bothering all of us, you can't do it. And then that's what we caught the charges or the suit for, rather.

So the ordinance that we repealed generally stated that there could not be certain activity, including panhandling, within so many feet of a major intersection. Right. The issue that subjected it to challenge was that there was no place on US 90 between downtown and the interstate, I don't think, that allowed anyone to engage in any type of the prohibited activity because every area was, you know, within so many feet of the prohibited intersection.

I have a question about that. You know, just spitballing here because this is a, you know, an issue that's, you know, everyone's trying to figure it out. Has anyone made, this sounds silly, has anyone made a public area you can do it in? Is there something like every so-and-so miles or something like that? You know, a space that is a space for it?

I mean, I don't I'm not aware of a place that has created a designated panhandling area. But but in doing so, you would still have to justify why it is you're not allowing them to panhandle in the areas where it's not allowed.

And is a nuisance is not considered justified, justifiable so far at the state level, I guess.

So the courts have been pretty clear that sometimes First Amendment expression is an inconvenience to those who are subjected to receiving the message. And so what some citizens may consider to be a nuisance, others would consider to be a necessary activity in a free society for free expression. And so that's kind of where the courts have landed on the nuisance issue. One thing that I think it was you that mentioned it earlier about garbage and that sort of thing. There was a case as recent, I just became aware of it this afternoon. There was a case as recent as the end of June out of Daytona Beach that was decided by the 11th Federal Circuit out of Atlanta. And almost on point to what you were saying there, one of their justifications was that some of the participants in panhandling were defecating near the intersections. And the court said an inconvenience. You may not like it, but the way to deal with that is through disorderly conduct charges, not by prohibiting free speech activities at the intersection. And so, you know, and I think you made this point, I believe it was you that on littering enforce our litter laws, whether it be, you know, against the person who littered or perhaps against the private property owner who owns the adjacent land, who then may enforce trespass laws for people being on their private property, but that still doesn't address somebody squarely on the sidewalk.

Right. And I have a question. I think it was the chief. I talked to the chief a couple weeks ago about this. One of the issues, too, for certain areas, because there's some areas where folks have been panhandling a lot that are private property. And like, for instance, in front of Publix, it's a very, very busy intersection. There's usually several there. And Publix has refused to trespass them. Is that what you told me?

We've asked them before, and they're reluctant, unless the person is being disruptive on their property, to fill that out. Now, we do have... property owners, if they have a vacant building or vacant land, that'll give us a blanket trespass letter, which is good for one year. And with something along those lines, we don't have to contact the owner at 2 o'clock in the morning. We've got that, but that doesn't take care of the panhandling issue that's being discussed. That's more when they're setting up camp on a private property without permission of the property owner. Now, they have done trespass orders for specific individuals, but again, that's normally when they cause some kind of disturbance on their property.

Yeah. Ms. Harris?

Okay, so I was a little late, so I didn't hear everything you said, but what is the actual problem? Is it the homeless? Is it the panhandling? What is the actual problem? It's the panhandling. I don't see how we'll get past that legally.

Hold to the end. We'll have public participation at the end. If you could just make notes to answer those.

I looked up, since the work Pompano came up, I looked up their... what they have going on, and I'm going to read that.

Sure.

Pompano Beach restricts street solicitation or specific medians and busy roadways under city code standing on medians narrower than five feet wide that divide roads with three or more lanes per direction is prohibited. I like that. But I could see that happening because that would, to me, would be a safety issue if it's more than a two lane, for instance, like it is on 90. I could see that being a safety issue. It says, you are prohibited from sitting, standing, or staying on paved medians that are more than three feet but less than five feet wide and divide roadways with at least Three travel lanes on either side. Safety regulations. While other restrictions have been challenged, the city has historically required solicitors to comply with certain safety measures and permitted areas such as wearing brightly colored visibility vests and completing roadway safety courses. Miners, we have a lot of miners that do the car washes and stuff. It says street solicitation by minors is strictly prohibited in public right ways, shoulders and swells. I think this would be a model that we probably should go after. I think there should be a moderate, and I think that it will prohibit some of the stuff that you're talking about, but I just don't see us ever getting rid of panhandlers, and I'm not understanding why is it such, I mean, maybe I be minding my own business too much, but just to ride up the street to see, oh, somebody's doing this over there, somebody's doing that over there, that's just not, we don't have this city where we're having 40 to 50 out there every day. and the afternoon, mornings, and evening. To me, this is, I don't want to say a waste of time, but to me, it is all the other issues that we have in Lake City. I think we should focus on that more so than this. But I think what Pompano is doing, I think that we should mimic what they are doing.

Ms. Young?

I believe we would have to do investigation. As I said, checking with the smaller towns who we don't see this happening, And just as well, when we look at mimicking another, we have to do an investigation. They may have justification in order to do this. Maybe it's so many, like someone stated, maybe it's so many deaths that has occurred that gives them the right or privilege to set these standards. So we have to not, can't just, and I'm sure our attorney, Clay, would know to check not only what they have, but how did they get there? How did they get to be able to set this ordinance in place?

Certainly, if this is the course the council wanted us to take, we would probably honestly start with a conversation with their city attorney, and I probably would encourage Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Johnson to have a conversation with their city management and administration and Chief Butler, his counterpart at their law enforcement agency. I don't know if it's county or city there. but to see what their full experience has been, both in terms of what got them to that point and how it's worked since the court case.

Yes, ma'am. And also, setting these ordinances, and especially when it comes to... criminal cases and whether it's misdemeanor or whatever, we have to remember that's still costing. It costs us a lot, just like a lawsuit would. When you're putting them in jail, of course you're only gonna be able to house them for so long. And then how many do we have? How many are we finding and putting them in the jails? And jails already overcrowded last I heard. So we have to take all of that into consideration. We have to look at the big picture. Is it really worth putting a whole lot of time in it when you really can't? Can't stop it. I don't think we can make a major change in it. So consider all of that.

I'll share my thoughts on this now. Whenever it comes to panhandling, there's a couple of hotspots, and the hotspots are obviously, and I think they're the most prevalent. You talked about public agita with people coming to your window. I think that's mostly happening on our widest public roadways where there's a median in the middle and also on commercial lots. I don't think this is a homeless problem per se. As Mr. Jernigan pointed out, you have professional panhandlers. You have a company here that's making money on panhandling currently. The Voice for the Homeless, to be named, they stand in every media. And I've watched one of their guys swoon on a four-lane highway and take a step back almost in front of my truck. So I think that's a public issue. I think that's a safety issue. because if he hadn't caught himself he would have fallen in front of my truck if I had to swerve there was traffic that's or that's an accident that's on me that's on my insurance that's a large cost and if it's happening to me it's happening to people all over the community my thoughts would be as Miss Harris that a narrow standard for our roads and panhandling to eliminate it from the median and that's everybody from the median that would be our fire firemen that would be kids in the median i don't think that anybody should be in the median as far as as you know things on the sidewalk sidewalks the sidewalk it is a free speech zone um within reason as long as they're not doing anything that creates a public nuisance defecating was mentioned in some of those other things i hope that we never get to that place in lake city um but i think having a narrowly defined roadway ordinance not something like what we had before where where it painted a broad stroke and put us in hot water. And we'll leave that to your legal expertise, Mr. Martin, to come up with a clear definition that we can all come to look at. But also some proactive work with our property owners, whether it's a direct mail campaign to hit all of our commercial property owners and let them know, hey, these are the things that we can do to proactively help you with a panhandling issue at your entrance and exit. whether it's a blanket trespassing or signage. I think that having proactive signs at our major intersections, and I know that Mr. Brown about this and DOT restricts what we can do, but we need to find out what we can do and do it and have that on commercial property where they'll allow us by the mall, by Publix, these other places that say, if you want to give money to help somebody, There are organizations in town, like the Homeless Coalition, like the United Way, like Rotary, or like the homeless shelter out next to Red Lobster, that actively help homeless people live more comfortably, make sure that they're fed, and try to reconnect them with their family. I think that those would be anti-panhandling measures that we could start with, we could begin with. Does that make sense? Yes, ma'am.

Because when you say sidewalls, Think about the sidewalks. That's not the... Yeah. They're on a sidewalk. They got to run in the road to get to the... Yeah, so what I would say is don't go in the road.

I feel like that if you're aggressively running into the road to panhandle, that would be a legal violation and a public safety issue.

But in wording, sidewalks, what do we...

You can't restrict you can't restrict somebody from a sidewalk. Somebody can hand them something out of the window or pull into a parking lot.

But putting that in word.

Well, it makes it.

So here's what it does is it makes it less accessible to make a living by panhandling. It makes it harder to do. And frankly, I'm not against that. If you're doing a car wash or you're collecting money for a productive purpose, you're likely not going to be standing in the – except for Chief and his crew who aren't – and he's strategically not in the room. But you're not going to be in the median. You're likely going to have big green signs over showing off that you have a car wash. Pull in here at your convenience type of thing. I don't think that anybody – I don't think that it's responsible in the first place to throw a kid in the median, even if it's on the driver's side for easier collection. I think that I would never let my children go into the median to collect, ever.

I have this problem, and we need to talk about it. But when you look at the population size, Baker County does not have as many people as, they don't even have that many red lights as we do here in Columbia County. The population is totally different. So we don't need to consult them about anything that they probably would never have a problem with. In the next probably 20, 30 years. So I wouldn't suggest that.

But to have to see zero, that's, you know, I don't know.

It is something. It's something to be researched. Yes, sir, Mr. Carter.

piggyback on what Ms. Harris said there. From my experience, most of these issues seem to be more prevalent in areas that have a lot of interstate access. Baker County, towns like McLinney and the like, they're pretty far from their interstate access. So it wouldn't probably do much good to stand on the I-10 90 exit there's very little happening there so you know and then again it's you know in mclinney it's kind of long you know but it's just the five or six red lights there um but i think i think that there's maybe but i do i think there's also about like a quarter or less though the the population of lake city so obviously the more people that's why we have you know our amount here and that's why certain parts of jacksonville you there's areas you just about can't you know walk down the road without bumping into somebody who's asking you for something so I think that there's no harm in asking some of our neighbors, hey, have you guys had to deal with this? And if so, how? But I do think that they're, you know, I would think that Baker County and Columbia County are apples to oranges when it comes to the population there. But I am, as we're wrapping it up and getting to some sort of consensus, it sounds like the stuff that Mr. Clay talked about earlier and that you talked about with the three-lane road, It certainly seems like something we may be able to apply to Highway 90, which is our primary artery here.

And Maine as well.

Right. And again, I agree, too. No shade towards the fire department. But I don't think that the fire guys or car washes or newspaper salespeople should be in the middle of the roads. It is risky, and I have been... I have been startled by firefighters with a boot before. I'm just looking forward and someone's like, hey, at my window, you know. Luckily, I was sitting still at the time. But no, I mean, I think that it's got the panhandling issue is very little to do with the homeless issue. I know that the panhandlers here in town are called the homeless voice and there's sort of a maybe a cultural tie in. But this is about people both bothering and potentially putting themselves and others at risk in the middle of a road. Right, and so if we can at least kind of attack the issue on the 90 corridor, that's something. And then, of course, as fervently as we can, enforcing our littering because, again, the intersection of Bay and – it hasn't been too bad lately. I feel like the people that were making that mess have moved to a different part of town, but it's been – It's been like a miniature landfill there on multiple occasions, and I'm sure that the city's probably had to go out and clean it because no one else is, right? I see Steve nodding in the back there. So, yeah, of course, the littering stuff, it's low-hanging fruit. We can try to focus on the folks that are making messes because that's something that people actively complain to me about. The 90 thing, the three lanes, again, that sounds like something that is actionable. And then, yeah, there is an element of... There have always been panhandlers, and there will always be panhandlers. But if we can make it a little bit more tedious in our busiest roads to, as you say, make a living bagging in the streets, I think we should.

That sounds like a consensus on panhandling. One last thing on this before we move to the homeless concern, because we are going to have to do a continuation.

I believe the connection, connecting the two came because of our main street here, Marion. and it was said that the homeless were said to have been panhandling. So that's how we got the two of them, because we're talking about our homeless on this main strip right here. So that's how both of them came together. I don't think we even put much discussion. and to the outside.

To me, it can be a quality of life as a whole. But we are going to move now on to the homeless concerns. We'll begin with public input. Mr. Quadras, did you want to speak to this one? And then we'll have...

I believe that I follow the council. The homeless issue, as far as being represented, as to panhandling, I feel are one and the same. and they interact and co-mingle. A lot of what you guys have said, I feel like I have explanation that would be just prudent for the council to review. A lot of the things you talk about with Pompano Beach, on the last time we met, I handed you guys all sample ordinances that are clear examples of tailored measures of how to apply that exact type of ordinance that would completely protect free speech and panhandling and focus on public safety. That would be the means in which we could actually enforce it and be narrowed down for the court aspect. The other aspect was regarding to moving people from one side, from what the chief was saying, from the middle to the sidewalks. The ordinance also included a six-foot buffer from the sidewalk curb. So that would then prevent people, that would still give them the ability to walk on the sidewalk But the easement area that they encroach on right at the edge of the curb will now become part of that safety zone. They would not be able to because they would be in the same violation of safety from the medium to the curb. So that still doesn't prohibit people from using expressing on the sidewalk, but not right up against the curb. because there is that buffer from road um the this also talking about being a smaller community uh that it's not that big of a problem being noticed this has never been an issue so this has grown from something that never was to the something that is rapidly becoming more of an issue so the purpose is to try and get ahead of it before it outgrows our ability to handle it um The homeless not wanting, you know, as far as going to jail, as far as worried about handling all the jail fill, if the homeless want to be in jail because of three hots and a cot, they would be breaking every law to get out of the sun to do that. They obviously do not want to go to jail or else they have easy measures to do so. So the whole purpose was send a couple messages that this is what's going to happen and the rest will follow suit. So I very strongly believe that the jail aspect will be a non-issue. Because they will not want the repercussions of that. And also the purpose of this is to be preventative, not reactive. Yes, we might not have traffic numbers to show that people have been hurt. But why is it that we're waiting for something to happen to finally do something about it? It's an accident waiting to happen and we all know it. So let's be proactive about it. Set something in place. To keep everybody safe, including the children that are doing the car washes. They should be able to do that for that short instance, but have safety measures so that keep them safe. The people running for public office. This is not a nondiscriminate against homeless or panhandlers. This is anybody. So this will be an all encompassing action so that no matter whom is on the streets, they're all following the same aspect. Okay. And then higher traffic areas determine the major areas of concern because this is where they raise revenue. So towns like Live Oak or Butler areas, they don't have the vehicle traffic. So that's the reason why this is such a concern for our areas compared to others. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Quadris. Ms. Coker, is there anybody else that wants to speak to this issue?

All right. We'll wrap it up with Ms. Coker.

So the concern with justification, as I understood the attorney, is that it is the justification that allows you to carve out some exception to someone's First Amendment rights. So you can create all of the ordinances that are preventing people from doing things. If you can't justify it, then I humbly submit it's a court case waiting to happen. You need to be able to explain why you thought it was in a safety concern, if that's what you're claiming, safety concern. We didn't just get right-of-ways. We didn't just get sidewalks. So without some data showing when and how has this become a problem, then you are... looking at a problem that you identify, and I'm hearing a lot of people say that it's a nuisance. Absolutely it's a nuisance, but it's a nuisance when your kids keep asking you to go outside and you have to keep telling them no too. You just have to say no if that's what you feel. I am curious as to whether or not the city has looked into applying for, it's called an emergency solutions grant. It is federal funding distributed by Florida DCF to local governments. That grant would allow the city of Lake City to obtain some data, some data and have these conversations and look at some resources that don't sound like we are trying to criminalize or punish people for being homeless. The reality is it could be any one of us. the change of circumstances. So I do have a problem with this concept that you send them to jail enough and they'll stop sitting there. That's a lie. They're not going to stop sending them going there because we have recidivism. And I mean, we have drug dealers and other criminals that continue to go back to prison and they didn't stop doing it because we sent them back to jail. So that is not an answer, sending people to jail in hoping that it's going to rehabilitate them. And I really, really caution you guys that that is not the way we want to present offering a resolution to this concern. And it's not a problem, it's a concern. Bring some stakeholders in here so that you can hear from all of the people touching homelessness to weigh in on what is happening. There are a lot of families outside living in these woods. And if the kid wanders out and sits on a bench and falls asleep, I'm going to stand with them holding the petition sign, charging Lake City with cruel and unusual punishment. That's not where we want to be. We don't want to be there. Let's take some time and just seek real resolutions to this concern. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Coker. We've heard from the public. We do have Ms. Missy Lee from the Homeless Coalition with some data. If you'd like to present that. Sorry.

I do have some. And Jennifer Lee.

And thank you. Sorry, Jennifer. Thank you for coming tonight.

That's okay. So I am with United Way, and I'm Director of Homeless Services at United Way. And we... do receive grants to provide assistance.

Hold on just a second. Christian, is there any way that we can turn that mic up? That center mic up? Okay. Will you make sure that you're just speaking? I'll try. Thank you.

And I do have some data. We do, every year we go out because we do get some federal grants. And we do a count. We go out and look for homeless individuals. And so within our four-county area, we counted last year 436 individuals that were homeless. And the bulk of those, obviously, are in Columbia County. So there are homeless. We do receive several grants to assist to help get all these homeless individuals into housing, stable housing. But it's more need than what the money that we get. So I don't know what kind of data you are looking for.

Well, I guess just have it on hand in case there are any questions or concerns that need to be addressed. Chief Attorney Martin on the laws and enforcements. Yeah. Well, actually, wait till they go and then we'll have council questions, comments.

Mr. Mayor, council members, on the legal side of this, obviously the city does not have an ordinance that requires anyone to be housed, requires anyone to have a home. There are people who have what I would call living circumstances. They live in tents. They live in the woods. Sometimes they trespass to do it. That's not a legal matter. That's just an anecdotal matter of fact. But On the legal side of things, there was a state statute passed three or four years ago. It does prohibit the city from doing anything to allow or encourage overnight camping in public spaces. So you can see how very narrow that is. That means if somebody is sleeping in a public area during the daytime, then they don't have an infraction. It also does not really allow or have within the statute any areas or any statements that would allow a remedy for the city to exercise itself. Any remedies under that statute have to be exercised by the county. A county can designate an area in the city or the county on public land that allows for public camping for up to a year. As part of that, there has to be an approved plan to provide certain services to those who are taking advantage of that particular area, but that's not a designation that the city can give. It's kind of an odd statute in that it says we can't allow it to happen, but it doesn't give us any particular remedy that we can exercise against someone who is violating that particular statute. Yeah.

Yes, please. Anything you say, it's got to be recorded, so step up to the mic.

And I think we were fiscally exempt from that, our county, so we didn't have to do that particular encampment that didn't apply to our county.

That's fiscally constrained? Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Okay. And you're right. There is no requirement that the county designate a place, but if there is going to be a place designated, it has to be done by the county. They have that option if they choose to, but the city cannot designate such a place. It has to be the county that does it if it is going to be done.

Yeah, and we were exempt from that.

It's not a requirement. Okay. But it still can happen if they choose to.

Okay.

So, yeah.

What Mr. Martin is saying is that we don't have to put that in place because of our fiscal constrained designation as a county, but it doesn't stop the county from putting something in place. The county doesn't have to, but they can. Does that make sense?

Right. Like, Mr. Mayor, to be clear, there are counties in the state that are required by state statute to do it. We are not. We're exempt from that.

Ms. Young, do you have something?

Thank you. I was just saying, instead of saying, be more specific, he narrowed it down.

Sure. So this is a pretty robust conversation to be had in a non-dehumanizing way to talk about some of the quality of life issues that... are occurring around lake city we had the the shopping cart issue the littering issue which isn't just a homeless concern also the property rights issue where we've got a lot of commercial property owners who who are complaining to the city about larger encampments building up and these other things Um, I would like to ask the council now, because this is, we have gone over our allotted time for the workshop. Um, do we want to, uh, have a continuation of this workshop another night, or do we want to continue now with this conversation? Nor does the will of the council. Yes, ma'am.

I just don't believe another workshop is going to be beneficial. We're going in a circle now. I don't think this circle is going to straighten out. There are a lot of people who are very heartfelt when it comes to homeless.

Sure.

And when we talk to these people, and we're hearing it in here today, no one wants to put in an ordinance that's going to... charged against these homeless people. And again, I've heard it at the podium tonight, and I've also heard it countless times going to these few businesses that I went to. The heart says they're homeless. We don't judge them. We shouldn't charge them. We don't know if we'll be there tomorrow. So I don't know that. I wouldn't say schedule another workshop.

Mr. Jernigan. I'm in agreeance with Vice Mayor Young. I just think that we're going around and around in circles. This is a worldwide, statewide, countrywide problem, and I can't see the city of Lake City handling this situation or circumstances, I just can't see it, without some type of repercussion. And what I mean by that is that there's lawsuits waiting to happen because of the homelessness and panhandling. So why would we try to get around those rules? I mean, we have a lady here that's speaking about the homeless, and she's talking about the different funding that she gets. And that comes from the homelessness. So I don't understand that. why we would need another workshop. And I'm telling you, we're going around in circles right now. I would like to solve it. Don't get me wrong. But I mean, I don't have that mindset. And again, just like Councilwoman, I mean, Vice Mayor Young said, we want to make sure that we are not there and help the ones that's there. get out of that rut. So that's it, Mayor. I don't think another workshop, to answer your question, I don't think there's another workshop needed. Thank you, Mr. Jernigan. Mr. Carter.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. So it seems to me that the reason that this is such a difficult topic for us to try to tackle is because, quite frankly, this issue is much bigger than a city government issue. And the homeless issue across the country, as we keep saying, it's happening everywhere, across the country, across the state, is as much a mental health issue as it is a homeless issue. And quite frankly, the state and federal governments used to have a lot more hospitals, state hospitals and things like that for mentally ill and for people who needed help with those sort of things. I think it was the late 70s that a lot of those were like wholesale clothes, right? Because there were a ton of abuses, a lot of people being experimented on, basically. And the issue has slowly grown since then. There used to be, for better or worse, a place where folks who needed help like that went, and there stopped being a lot of those places. So as time has gone on, there's just more and more people who need help and there is no help. And Lake City, nor any individual city, probably has the time or the money or the understanding to be able to tackle the issue all by themselves. Because honestly, the issue is all these folks living in these camps in these woods, they need a lot more help than just a house. Most of these folks, if it's just get a job, pay your bills and get a house, well, most folks are able to do that. The majority of folks we look around we see can do that. The folks that are in these camps and stuff like that, there's a lot more going on then. And this is the issue that I run into too. When I'm talking to folks and their issue is being bothered at the intersections, being panhandled to and things like that, quite frankly, the average American, the average hardworking American who's working their nine to five, living paycheck to paycheck, they resent a person begging them for money. They just don't like it. They're like, hey, I'm barely paying my bills. Leave me alone. That's what I hear from people. And I think everybody probably has a little bit of, I get that. Right. And also everybody has a whole lot of I got my own stuff to worry about. But the truth of the matter is, it seems to me as I sit here and I think about how helpless we feel as a government to do anything about this because of rules at the state level, the more it seems to me that more local communities need to get together and advocate in a larger group to the state and to the federal government and eventually come up with some sort of solution that wholesale attacks the mental health crisis that is at the root of most of these issues. So, you know, Because I feel a little silly here as we're sitting here. We're going, well, we can't do anything about it. We made that law, and they sued us. We made this law, and they sued us. The town next door made that law, and they got sued. Okay. And the thing is, as has been suggested here, you may be able to pass a law that stands up in court. But... it's not those laws where they are passed are not stopping the issue. The issue is still happening. It's aggressively prevalent. So us making that law might make us not get, not losing court, but we're still gonna be able to stop people from panhandling. And we're still not gonna be able to stop people from living in the woods if they ain't got anywhere else to live. So I don't know how we go about creating some sort of coalition with other communities. I don't know if there is maybe one that already exists that we can co-sign and jump on board and start providing data from our homeless coalition or however it goes. But to me, that seems to be the bigger solution is a state and a federal solution. This is an American problem, not a Lake City problem. So I don't know if another meeting right now, unless we have more to talk about, is going to do a whole lot. But I would like to find out if there is someplace we can start leaning on if there is a coalition that already exists. Like I said, it's just way bigger than Lake City. And we don't need to beat ourselves over the head. We're failing this problem. The country is failing a lot of people. That's the problem.

Thank you, Mr. Carter.

I will say, out of the panhandling portion of this meeting, we have a couple of solutions that did come out of that that are productive. To not speak too much, I would like to see the city, and on a future agenda, we'll talk about shopping cart littering and solutions for that. We will talk about, obviously, tonight we have a conversation about the blue benches and the benches on Marion Street. I would like for us to talk about, and this comes from a city to our west who spent a lot of money chasing a lot of money into building a homeless shelter and ended up filling it with folks all the way from Tennessee and North Carolina because that's what they did. They built a Taj Mahal and people moved into it. Um, from, from far away, they provide them dental care and healthcare and stuff that, that, you know, your, your everyday American right now is foregoing. Um, and now they've got a successful reuniting program instead that they're funding. And what that looks like is, is partnering with a homeless coalition, uh, to triage, uh, folks who are having issues in their community, in these camps who, uh, are homeless and helping them get back home, um, across the country, uh, so that they're not isolated in a place where they don't know anybody that they're living in the woods, uh, but they're reuniting them with the family. So I'm going to bring back a, a, for lack of a better term, a bus program to help people reignite with their family, uh, and partnering with the homeless coalition on that. Um, and then, uh, I think that the city needs to do, uh, some leading by example on this. And, uh, take a look at our lots and the property that we own around town and make sure that they're clear and free of drug use and that there's nothing nefarious or anything crazy going on on those lots. Those are my thoughts on it. I hear that we don't want another workshop, but these items will probably be coming back up before us here in the next month, month and a half. Sound good?

Mr. Mayor, just to be clear, I would be fine with another workshop. I just don't want it to be an amorphous number two homeless concerns.

Sure. Well, yes, it's broad, right? It's broad. This is a broad concern. Let me put this on record. Yeah, go ahead.

I think that we should have another one. We keep talking about it, talking about it, talking about it, and that is because we're trying to come up with a solution, and that's the only way you're going to come up with a solution is if you talk about it. As far as the shopping carts, Audi has a thing, whereas when you get the shopping cart, you have to pay a quarter, and then when you return it. We might need to make different businesses responsible for their own shopping carts. That'll cut a lot of that out.

The Grocers Association at the state has just dominated the cities on that. What I think is we need to have a wasting program for our shopping carts where we pick them up, we hold them for 30 days. If they don't come and get them, they go to the landfill. Once they are spending thousands of dollars on shopping carts, they might start evaluating the boundary limitations or the pay for a shopping cart, that kind of thing. Not to make shopping inconvenient, but to make littering inconvenient.

I have just a question. Maybe it changed and I didn't realize it, but we had passed a thing in The Winn-Dixie by my house, if you get even too deep into the parking lot, the wheels freeze up. So is that not still the case? I thought that had already happened.

It's voluntary only.

Okay, so they weren't required.

Okay, I got you. Incredible lobbying effort.

All right. But I think we should have another workshop, not specifically on one thing, but on all the issues we have.

We will now close out this meeting with public participation. If anybody would like to speak at the mic. Yes, sir. And then we will take a five-minute break and we'll go into our regularly scheduled city council meeting.

Thank you guys for allowing me to speak on this. I respect all your opinions. I do feel that we have a solution. If you guys choose not to do that, that is your prerogative. I feel like the citizens of this town are asking for this in whole, and we're taking the minority's concern over the majority of the citizens, meaning the lot of citizens here that pay taxes on here, they want something to be done. I feel like the proposed ordinance that I give packets on on the previous meeting is a clear-cut example of how to execute that ordinance in a way that will protect the city and allow for the citizens the police force to act, the police department to enforce it. That was what it really comes down to. The other towns, we don't control them. But our Lake City PD that I've spoken with are asking for a solution that has teeth behind it, and they're willing to enforce it. So we're trying to, this ordinance that I provided would allow for that to be enforceable. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Quadras. We'll come back to council comments in just a second. We'll let public participation finish up. Ms. Coker? Oh, sorry, Mr. Beauchamp.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. From what I'm hearing, you haven't come up with a solution yet for the panhandling.

Sure.

Here's a suggestion or a thought maybe. It's going to happen, and maybe a way that you might be able to control it somewhat is by a permitting process. Think about it. In the permitting process, whatever you decide as an ordinance, you can have that as part of the permitting when they come and apply. Please make sure you're speaking.

Sorry, I can't hear you, Mr. Bishop. You can't hear me? No, sir. You just got to get really close. Sorry about that. Oh, okay.

Could you not? Okay, do I need to say it again? Yeah, please. Okay.

We'll start your time over.

I'm sorry. I usually speak loud enough. Everyone can hear me, but... What I was saying, I didn't hear you come up with a solution for the panhandling, of course, but my suggestion or thought would be in order to maybe control it somewhat is to have a permitting process to actually panhandle or do whatever they want to do. You might be able to control it, and that way you can incorporate that ordinance into the permit. Another thing on the homeless, you're going to have homeless permits. I don't know. She said it was 430. I wasn't quite sure she meant Tri-County or just Columbia County.

Columbia, I believe.

Okay. That's a lot of homeless people. I would think that as a government agency and the impact that it would have, I would want to have a committee of group or volunteers to go out and actually talk to some of these people that are homeless and find out, number one, why are they homeless? Where are they from? What's their intention? Are you going to stay here? Do you want to stay here? Do you want a home? Or do you want transportation back to wherever you came from? And I think that by doing this, you have enough data to formulate a plan to handle the situation. Right now, you've got all these ideas, but you really don't know which way to go. And I think finding out what's the key problem with these people being homeless other than financial, I think would go a long ways towards finding a solution. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bushama.

that concludes our public comment on this item uh final comments by council miss young yes i just have a question for the gentleman here um so you have so many people who um agree with you or or you're speaking on behalf of so do they not why won't they come and support you in this it's it's a lifelong issue there's always going to be a squeaky wheel i hear talk but

Like many issues, people don't want to come up and make themselves vocal. I made this choice on myself. I'm not an advocate. I'm just an average citizen. that looked at and said, no one's willing to come up there and do this conversation. So I took it upon myself to do that. Well, I do know is I wouldn't be wasting my time doing this if I didn't have my ear bent by so many people around the community that you hear this exact same conversation. So I just decided on my own. I said, I'm going to, I'll be that voice. I don't care. Like I said, I'm not an advocate. I'm not trying to promote one thing over another. I just want a solution done. So that's the reason why when I came up with it, I wanted to come with a solution. not just something to gripe about because that doesn't that wastes everyone's time so yes i don't know why people don't come up like many things you know the the voices that end up saying something are always the few i decided to be that voice and i can only handle what i'm gonna do and just take the voice that i hear and pass the message along so i don't have an answer for that i understand

Thank you, Mr. Quadris. Any other comments? All right. We're going to close out this meeting, and we'll be back in five minutes for our regularly scheduled city council meeting.

Rick.