Aurora City Councilmember Steve Sundberg holds up a sign he made, taking off on the signs frequently seen by panhandlers in the city. Sundberg is sponsoring a local measure posting signs on medians asking the public not to donate to panhandlers, and instead donate to city homeless programs. SENTINEL SCREEN GRAB 
The majority of the Aurora City Council signaled support for a charitable campaign called “Give Real Change” that would encourage people to donate money to organizations dedicated to helping people experiencing homelessness rather than offer cash to panhandlers. Screen shot via City of Aurora
AURORA | Panhandlers will soon have to contend with signs around some of Aurora’s busiest intersections urging drivers to give to charities instead, after an anti-begging campaign was approved Monday by the majority of Aurora’s City Council.
Sponsors Angela Lawson and Steve Sundberg pitched the campaign — which the city projects will cost $29,440, including the cost of posting and maintaining 64 signs at 16 intersections around the city — as a way of protecting panhandlers and drivers in busy intersections.
“This is not going to stop people from giving,” Lawson said. “To me, this is more about the safety issue along these narrow intersections and these narrow areas where the cars are so close to the people who are panhandling. And that’s a dangerous situation.”
The group voted 6-4 to introduce the campaign, with progressives Alison Coombs, Juan Marcano, Ruben Medina and Crystal Murillo voting “no.”
Opponents questioned whether it would have an impact and if the group was stigmatizing homeless people asking for help. Marcano noted that a comparable program in Salt Lake City raised about $5,000 per year, which would not be enough to provide housing for a single person.
“I’m just not seeing the payoff for this kind of policy,” he said. “I do share concerns about folks being on medians and in traffic, but this isn’t how we’re going to change that.”
Coombs also repeated her criticism from the Aug. 15 study session where the campaign was first considered — that the proposal lacked important data in part because it had not gone through a policy committee, where a subgroup of council members has the chance to provide input on a proposal before it’s brought before the council as a whole.
Sundberg said Aug. 15 that he and Lawson skipped the policy committee step to “fast-track” the proposal and that it was the first or one of the first pieces of legislation he had introduced. On Monday, he said the move allowed them to evade criticism from council progressives.
“If this would have went before one of your committees, it (would have) had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting out of there and going to a study session,” Sundberg told Coombs. “If we would have put the camping ban through one of your committees, it would not have made it either. The city would look like 1969 Woodstock … with all of the campers around.”
A policy committee does not have the power to stop a council member from bringing legislation to the full council for the entire group to consider and vote on.
After Coombs’ criticism last week that sponsors lacked important information such as the number of traffic accidents caused by panhandlers and citations issued for prohibited forms of begging, additional data was included in the council’s agenda packet.
Staffers wrote that three summons had been issued this year for panhandling too close to a street or highway and no summons were issued for “aggressive begging,” though officers were said to “often contact individuals” and give them verbal warnings.
They also said police would have to review every traffic accident report to determine how many accidents involved panhandlers. While Lawson said last week that she was also concerned about links between panhandling and human trafficking, staffers said they were unaware of any cases of that happening.
They wrote that police were able to find 163 calls where the term “panhandler” was used, but determining the context of those mentions would require each call to be reviewed.
Supporters of the campaign specifically said it would not prohibit people from asking for or providing money and help, which courts have ruled is protected speech, though they also argued that panhandling enables some homeless people to support addictions to drugs.
Sundberg said two people who panhandled near his workplace have overdosed on heroin, which they may have purchased using money obtained from panhandling.
“When it comes to stigma, I’d like to have the stigma of saving a life or two,” Sundberg said.
Marcano said he thought the campaign would not stop people from overdosing on drugs.
“What you’re trying to do here, while I think it’s very well-intentioned, would not have helped either of those two people significantly, or substantially, or frankly, probably, at all,” Marcano said. “For the amount that we’re going to spend on the signs alone, you could put two people through permanent supportive housing for a year. And that would have saved their lives.”
In addition to signs, the city will use its social media accounts and other resources like Aurora TV, newsletters, posters and the city website to spread the message of the “Give Real Change” campaign, steering donations toward the Spirit of Aurora charity in particular.
Here it is in black and white. Ignore the legislative process because you won’t like the result.
Sundberg said Aug. 15 that he and Lawson skipped the policy committee step to “fast-track” the proposal and that it was one of or the first pieces of legislation he had introduced. On Monday, he said the move allowed them to evade criticism from council progressives.
“If this would have went before one of your committees, it (would have) had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting out of there and going to a study session,” Sundberg told Coombs. Vote ????
Yep, vote. Vote out comrades Coombs and Marcano, who identify as “blue” merely for subterfuge. By the time they come up for re-election (word on the street is that Marcano says he is running for mayor) everyone will know they are in the cult of socialism called DSA, and what a cesspool they are trying to turn Aurora into.
The sight of poor and unhoused folks make people feel uncomfortable, even guilty. People associate these folks with crime, unfortunately, which, of course, is not necessarily true. Those people with the most often feel the most guilty.
What a surprise. Another bogus bill by the group that just keeps voting to spend taxpayer funds to bully homeless people. But now, they also need to use your tax money to tell you what to do with the money in your pocket.
Never mind that the city cannot solve any of the problems its been facing. Never mind the rising death count, the rising crime, never mind the inflation and poverty gripping the community. If you still have 5 bucks to spare, they wanna tell you what you are allowed to do with that too. Get over yourselves. Such blatant selfishness, just cause you dont like homeless people, is disgusting. I think acts like this should invalidate most of these people’s rights to votes from the, “Christian community”. After all, some of these people parade around to their churches, taking pictures and speaking as if they believe. But their actions speak very differently. They invoke God at the beginning of each hearing, but serve their Devil with every action thereafter.
Each day starts anew, with more battles to contest. But with this 6 people proved how stupid, selfish, and wasteful of the taxpayer $ they are. I hope once this plan is enacted, and the signs end up defaced, destroyed, and thrown into the street. I hope the citizens whose money and vehicles are now being put into more danger(they admitted these signs will not stop panhandling in any legit way) will take pictures of this and post it for them to see. Maybe once people are suing for these signs causing traffic accidents, and the city becomes liable(i did warn them), perhaps they should use #TaxMoneyWellSpent. Thanks to the Council. It is quite easy to show you as greedy, uncaring, and ignorant to the actual problems or potential solutions in your city. You make it easy, because your true motives are hidden behind a near-transparent veil.
But keep making it easy for me. I relish watching your “arguments” revealed for what they are. Ways to attempt to make yourselves look good while accomplishing nothing. I dont need such. I am far from perfect, but at least I am who I say I am. These people have so many faces they need to call Jim Henson back from the dead to properly voice all these puppets. Or maybe to give them a character other than, “lying manipulator with an IQ deficiency”.
Keep it coming, Mr. Cross. You are hilarious. I’m a fan.
But surely you’re not saying these “victims” will commit criminal acts in response to resource information being posted to help them? Not a ringing endorsement for their character, is it?
No. But you and I both know that there are multiple types of people. Whereas there are those like myself, who refuse to commit criminality to support their position, others are not so inclined. But it is a, “known known” that these acts will occur. The only questions are when and how. From either perspective, billboards, television, and internet publicity of this would all be more cost-effective and safer ways to promote the goal of getting people to donate to charity. The sign part of this concept is the stupid part, and the only one they seem to care about. Sad really.
Sir, you should do your due diligence.
I’m no expert but even a cursory Google search reveals the cost of the smallest billboard (5 X 11′) is more than $1000, per month. A billboard facing each direction near the problem intersections — if available at all — would exhaust their budget in a month. Again facing two directions only.
Their plan includes signage at the street level at all 4 corners of each intersection WHERE THE PROBLEM OCCURS. Common sense says that communication closer to the problem would be a more effective connection.
And let’s not even talk about the entirely prohibitive cost of advertising on network TV. (We can assume they will promote this program on the city channel and website.)
I was trying to be nice. To be honest, what I intend is nothing like this setup. It draws revenue off those who choose to participate, sends that revenue to the charities that are helping solve these problems instead of brush them aside. I was trying to find some merit in their plan. But when the plan is trash, thats hard. Because even they admitted that even the base cost will be added to by consistent repairing/replacing of these signs, as well as the employees who must place them. So it won’t be a one-time cost. But hey, if you like their plan to litter signs all over Aurora, support what makes you happy. I will happily laugh at rhe ignorance of those who support this once this stupidity has cost a life, or a livelihood. Because that blood will be on the hands of those that support this continued effort to abuse the minor Powers of a local government, not mine.
I’m not lacking in Christian generosity if I don’t carry cash and choose to make my charitable contributions in other ways (electronically) and not try to guess which intersection beggar is scamming versus legit.
The non-Christian part is where we support people in our city council who choose to spend taxpayer money to harass and harm people less fortunate than them.
No you are not. The issue here is you have that choice, and that right. I shouldnt tell you what to do with your money, nor should the Council. I think you are all taxed pretty sufficiently already.
A step in the right direction. Disappointed to read the quote here that courts protect the right to this ineffective, scam eyesore. Standing in the roadway begging is first — a hazard… to the panhandler and motorists. Rather obvious; no study needed; we’ve all observed this. Second, in this age of smart phone pay, debit cards and such, who uses cash? Certainly some; but, statistically, few. And third, as one observes the same people day after day in different locales across the metro area — those in actual need are competing with those who drive/drop-off individuals and groups wearing the “costume” of poverty and need, who make panhandling a lucrative profession.
But yes, I don’t need a sign telling me to put my charitable dollars (electronically transferred, documented as tax deductions) where they’ll do the best good.
The only person I’ve ever seen who wore a costume of a homeless person was Little Mikey Coffman.
Sadly there are many people with homes that have plenty that disguise themselves as homeless for the free money. It is not the whole of those asking, but it is a discernable part of it. Yes, people pretend to be homeless for the free handouts. Yes, they abuse the kindness and generosity of those that choose to give. Which is why its important to see more than a, “bum with a sign”. Ol’ Sundberg said he saw the same guy for 3 years. Some people have homes and beg anyway, others have no home but refuse to leave or better themselves. Both are problems that need solved. But this is not the way, not by a long shot.
So, Omen, are you are you saying there’s a fraud panhandler back story to this, that “disguise themselves as homeless” and therefore they should be disallowed to have their fair piece of a handout? That’s complicated for the city to identify which is which because the signs don’t really apply to this bunch at all. Or are these fraud folks also at the charity front door looking for free stuff as well? Thats’ Rich!
I dont tell anybody how they should spend the money in their pocket. Do whatever you feel is right, because that is your right. If you wanna help somebody on the corner, do it. If you buy a beer, do it. If you wanna set that money on fire and watch it burn, do it. “It’s your money, use it when you need it.”-JG Wentworth All im doing is explaining things to the people that have not lived it, do not understand just how chaotic living on the streets of Aurora can be. And to your question, I have personally spoken to people that drove up in their vehicles, from their homes, to stand on a corner and make money because it is “easy”. If someone else is on the corner already, they will harass this person until they leave. Then stand there and hold up a sign that says, “Homeless, Anything Helps”. What else you call this but someone pretending to be homeless? Now see, the organizations they have lists. They keep track of who is using what aid where. So it is more difficult for these people to access some of the more “potent” homeless services. But a conspiracy? Nah, its just shitbags abusing the generosity of others to make their own lives easier. Thats not homelessness, that’s douchebaggery.
How can anyone be against this? The vast majority of panhandlers are able bodied and have a dominant addiction. Giving them money is killing them on the installment plan. It’s that simple.
How? It’s right there in the article. By giving the money that will be spent on signs on actually helping people.
I can give a little cash to someone and maybe they by drug, maybe they buy food.
We refuse to help those less fortunate than us and we are killing them with indifference. I’d rather the former.
As fast as the city puts up these signs @ $400 a piece the panhandlers will be dismantling them if they’re aluminum. In the eyes of the panhandler its a great big aluminum can. Great economics $400 retail to the taxpayer $25 at the scrap yard. And yet this is the same council that recognizes the identical problem exist with catalytic converter thief and on the right track with tackling that one. Here they are self-creating a new problem. I don’t get it. And this is regrettable to see this, truly regrettable.
Not long ago, some on the council wanted to control chocolate milk/ sugar drinks in restaurants. Again gov. should stay out of how people want to spend their money. This sign sign stuff is not much different.