Editor’s Note 9-16-23: After consulting with numerous city alders and command staff officers in the Madison Police Department over the last few days, we remain opposed to the change to the trespassing ordinance. However, we learned that a Supreme Court decision in 2015 over a municipal sign ordinance in Gilbert, Arizona has challenged panhandling laws across the country. You can learn more in this Columbia Law Review Note which states “In Reed v. Town of Gilbert the Supreme Court rearticulated the standard for when regulation of speech is content based. This determination has already had a large impact on cases involving panhandling regulations and is likely to result in the invalidation of the majority of this nation’s panhandling laws.” The City of Madison quietly stopped enforcing the city’s panhandling ordinance after 2015. This is not to be confused with Madison’s Median Safety Ordinance. The panhandling ordinance should not stand on the books for these legal reasons, but you can still register your opposition to and/or speak against (or FOR if you so wish!) the change to the trespassing ordinance at the upcoming Madison Common Council meeting on Tuesday, October 3.
The Madison Common Council will soon vote to get rid of ordinances meant to protect people and help ensure our public safety.
Do you want people panhandling in busy Madison intersections? How about right next to the ATM when you go to get cash? Do you like that panhandlers are prohibited by City ordinance from following you, using threats, or physical aggression to intimidate you into giving them money?
How about Trespassing? Do you want people bringing their bed or sleeping materials onto your lawn or your private property or business to sleep without your permission? Would you like police officers to be able show up to help you if needed?
Your Madison Common Council is hard at work, getting rid of Ordinances meant to protect people and help ensure our public safety.
The Common Council will vote on removing those protections at their September 19 meeting.
How Can You Make Your Voice Heard?
Your opportunity is now and your window of time is short.
The Public Safety Review Committee Will Discuss These Changes This Tuesday (9/13/23).
Opportunity #1: Public Safety Review Committee Meeting: September 13 at 5pm (Zoom) regarding the panhandling ordinance
Update: This Public Safety Review Committee meeting was canceled due to a lack of quorum.
Panhandling Ordinance
- Register here (use Agenda item #6)
- Register in OPPOSITION if you do not want this protection repealed.
- Register to speak (if at all possible—comments limited to 3 minutes- you will not be on video, it is audio only)
Currently we have many protections against TRESPASSING, but some on the Common Council are planning to get rid of the restriction on sleeping on private property without the owner’s permission (see below for more details).
Opportunity #2: Common Council Meeting: October 3 at 6:30pm (in person or via Zoom) regarding the trespassing ordinance
After noon on Friday, Sept. 29, you can register support or opposition at the link below. You will have to click the agenda link and find the Agenda # before you can register.
You can register in support or opposition here. You will have to click the agenda link and find the Agenda # before you can register in support or opposition.
Most things passed at Common Council meetings these days are passing en masse on the “consent agenda”. Unless community members show up to speak on an item or an Alder pulls it off the consent agenda for discussion, it won’t even be discussed or voted on. Many big City of Madison decisions are now being made this way.
If we don’t speak up (and maybe even if we do), we will live with the consequences of these decisions.
Opportunity #3: You Can Email the Mayor and Alders Now with Your Wishes and Concerns
Mayor@cityofmadison.com
Allalders@cityofmadison.com
Or call or meet with your alder personally. If you don’t know who your alder is, you can find out here by typing in your address.
Your Madison Common Council is hard at work, getting rid of Ordinances meant to protect people and help ensure our public safety. First they repealed the Juvenile Curfew, so there is no curfew for kids 16 and under in the City of Madison. At a time when youth gun violence is at an all-time high and most cities are implementing and re-implementing juvenile curfews, our city repealed ours last February.
In truth, our police officers didn’t write many citations for juvenile curfew violations (just 3 in the past 3 years), but they didn’t have to. They could say to a group of kids on the front end of bad behavior that they were in violation of the curfew and if they didn’t go home, police would write a citation. The juveniles usually went home. Problem solved. Now police have to wait for illegal activity to begin in order to intervene, likely resulting in a greater likelihood of crime, disorder, harmful behavior, and injured or arrested youth.
Let your alder know how you feel about these changes!
For more on the trespassing and panhandling changes, including supporting documentation and Legistar links, continue reading below.
Some Council members are working to remove part of a trespassing ordinance. This would allow people to sleep on someone else’s private property, with their bedding and sleeping possessions, like beds, pillows, etc., without permission of the one who owns the property. The stated rationale is similar to why they repealed the juvenile curfew: police have not had to enforce it very often.
But what if they needed to? Wouldn’t you like to think that if someone, or some group, decided to make your business or private residence their sleeping place and you didn’t like it you could call the police for help?
And how about those panhandlers in the medians? The Police Department gets a lot of calls and feedback here, because many people feel unsafe and at risk of an accident in these busy intersections where panhandling is illegal. It’s important to remember that panhandling itself is legal (covered under the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech), but it is prohibited in certain busy intersections and a few other places in the city (like within 100 feet of an ATM) where it creates a public safety hazard. It is also a violation if you give money or goods to a panhandler in these locations. Why? To protect people from harm. It’s a public safety issue.
Alders have heard a lot of feedback from the public regarding safety concerns in the median. The response of some? Let’s just make it legal then.
It is true that these violations are not frequently enforced by police, partly because it just isn’t easy. These intersections are already relatively busy and dangerous from a traffic standpoint. It’s hard to pull cars over when the driver is offering help to someone illegally in a median and already possibly creating a traffic hazard. And though MPD has actively conducted education campaigns when they can, by engaging with those panhandling in covered intersections, the optics of, say, arresting a homeless-looking person for repeated violations are not good. Especially when children and pets are involved, and that is when residents are most vocal and concerned. As soon as they get one panhandler to move along, another quickly comes along to take their place.
Among the safety protections that would be thrown out if this ordinance is repealed:
“In any place open to the public, no person either individually or as part of a group shall procure or attempt to procure a handout from another in an aggressive or intimidating manner. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such purpose or behavior is manifested are the following: that such person is a known panhandler; that such person continues to beckon to, accost or follow or ask passer(s)by for a handout after the passer(s)-by has failed to respond or has told the person “no”; that such person engages in a course of conduct or commits any act which harasses or intimidates the passer(s)-by; or that such person utilizes or attempts to utilize bodily gestures or physical contact to impede the path of any passer(s)-by, including but not limited to unwanted touching or blocking the path or impeding the free movement of the passer(s)-by. Behavior shall be construed as aggressive or intimidating if a reasonably prudent individual could be deterred from passing through or remaining in or near any thoroughfare or place open to be the public because of fear, concern or apprehension of said behavior.“
Do you want to see these protections repealed? If not, be sure to speak up!
Documentation
Documents Regarding Repealing the Partial Ban on Trespassing:
Legistar File No. 79504 Body
DRAFTER’S ANALYSIS: This repeals MGO 23.07(6)(a) and (b), subsections which focused on trespassing regarding sleeping or possessing items related to sleeping on the property of others. These subsections of the trespass ordinance have not been enforced for at least ten (10) years.
***********************************************************************************
The Common Council of the City of Madison do hereby ordain as follows:
- 1. Subsection (6) of Section 23.07 entitled “Unlawful Trespass” of the Madison General Ordinances is repealed and reserved for future use.
- 2. Subsection (13) of Section 23.07 entitled “Unlawful Trespass” of the Madison General Ordinances is amended as follows:
- “(13) Any person violating any of the provisions of Subsections (1), (2) or (11) of this section shall be subject to a forfeiture of up to five hundred dollars ($500); any person violating any provision of Subsection (3), (9) or (10) of this section shall be subject to a forfeiture of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1000); any person violating any provision of Subsection (4) or (8) of this section shall be subject to a forfeiture of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25) nor more than two hundred dollars ($200); and any person violating any of the provisions of Subsections (5) or (6) or (7) of this section shall be subject to a forfeiture of not more than three hundred dollars ($300).”
- 3. Table within Subdivision (a) of Subsection (3) entitled “Schedule of Deposits” of Section 1.08 entitled “Issuance of Citations and Complaints for Violations of Certain Ordinances and Providing a Schedule of Cash Deposits” of the Madison General Ordinances is amended by amending therein the following:
| Offense | Ord. No./Adopted Statute No. | Deposit |
| Possess/consume alcohol beverages on private property prohibited. | 23.07(5) | $200 |
| Sleeping on private property without permission prohibited. | 23.07(6) | $200 |
| Trespassing on railroad right-of-way. | 23.07(7)(a) | $25 |
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Subsection (6) of Section 23.07 entitled “Unlawful Trespass” of the Madison General Ordinances currently reads as follows:
- “(6)(a) No person shall sleep, lie down or take temporary habitation on the property of another without the permission of a person lawfully upon the premises.
- (b) No person shall possess or use items commonly associated with sleeping or habitation, including but not exclusively, beds, mattresses, sleeping bags, bedrolls, blankets,pillows, sheets, quilts and comforters on the property of another without the permission of a person lawfully upon the premises.”
You can find this documentation here.
Documents Repealing Panhandling Ordinance:
24.12 – PANHANDLING PROHIBITED (1) $300 Purpose . The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure unimpeded pedestrian traffic flow, to maintain and protect the physical safety and well-being of pedestrians and to otherwise foster a safe and harassment-free climate in public places in the City of Madison. The ordinance also provides protections in the Central Business District. This area is a special and unique area of the City of Madison, constituting the connection between the University of Wisconsin and the State Capitol, and having numerous businesses, restaurants and entertainment venues. The State Street Mall is a Transit Mall, with limited or no access to motor vehicles by the public. The City of Madison has a significant public and governmental interest in encouraging the public presence of residents and visitors in the Central Business District, and their unimpeded use of public areas and private businesses in the area by insuring that residents and visitors are able to walk unobstructed in this area without being stopped and asked for a handout.
Thousands of individuals walk in this area on a daily basis and the City has a significant interest in providing a safe, pleasant environment and encouraging visitors to frequent this area. The City has received regular complaints from businesses and residents of the Central Business District on the deleterious effect of panhandling in the area. The city finds that a ban on panhandling in this downtown area will serve these important interests. The City has determined that a significant number of individuals that request handouts, turn around and use the donated money to purchase alcohol. By eliminating the ability to procure a handout in close proximity to liquor establishments the City in turn hopes to reduce the cycle of abuse.
Definitions . As used in this section: “Central Business District” for purposes of this ordinance is defined to include the 100 through 800 blocks of State Street Mall, North Park Street from University Avenue to Lake Mendota, East Campus Mall, Fitch Court, North Lake Street from University Avenue to Lake Mendota, North Frances Street from University Avenue to Langdon Street, Langdon Street from North Park Street to North Frances Street, University Avenue from North Park Street to North Frances Street, West Gilman Street from University Avenue to North Henry Street, West Gorham Street from University Avenue to North Carroll Street, West Johnson Street from North Broom Street to North Carroll Street, Dayton Street from State Street to North Webster Street, Mifflin Street from North Henry Street to North Webster Street, West Washington Avenue from Henry Street to Carroll Street, East Washington Avenue from Pinckney Street to Webster Street, Main Street from South Henry Street to South Webster Street, Doty Street from South Fairchild Street to South Webster Street, Wilson Street from South Carroll Street to 120 East Wilson Street, North Broom Street from West Dayton Street to State Street, Henry Street from West Main Street to West Gorham Street, Fairchild Street from West Doty Street to State Street, Carroll Street from West Wilson Street to West Johnson Street, Pinckney Street from East Wilson to East Dayton Street, Webster Street from East Doty Street to East Dayton Street, Wisconsin Avenue from Mifflin Street to Dayton Street, North Hamilton Street from East Mifflin Street to North Webster Street, King Street from East Main Street to South Webster Street, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. from Wilson Street to Main Street, South Hamilton Street from South Fairchild Street to West Main Street.
This area is depicted in the map at the end of this section. “Intersection” has the meaning designated in Wis. Stat. § 340.01(25). “Known panhandler” means a person who within one year previous to the date of arrest for violation of this section has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of any civil or criminal offense involving panhandling. “Licensed alcohol establishment” means any retailer that is licensed to sell alcohol beverages under Chapter 38. “Procure a handout” means to request from another person an immediate donation of money, goods or other gratuity, and includes but is not limited to seeking donations. “Place open to the public” includes all places open to the public and includes but is not limited to streets, sidewalks, plazas, parks, driveways, parking lots, and all buildings open to the general public.
In any place open to the public, no person either individually or as part of a group shall procure or attempt to procure a handout from another in a manner or under circumstances manifesting an express or implied threat or coercion. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such purpose or behavior is manifested are the following: that such person is a known panhandler; that such person repeatedly and in a threatening fashion, beckons to, stops, or attempts to stop passer(s)-by; that such person engages passer(s)-by in threatening conversation; or that such person utilizes threatening bodily gestures.
A conversation or gesture or both shall be construed as threatening if a reasonably prudent individual would perceive such conduct as intending to result in the procurement or money, goods or other gratuity by threat or coercion. The violator’s conduct must be such as to demonstrate a specific intent to induce, solicit, or procure from another goods or money by threat or coercion. No arrest shall be made for a violation of this subsection unless the arresting officer first affords such person an opportunity to explain such conduct, and no one shall be convicted of violating this subsection if it appears at trial that the explanation given was true and disclosed a lawful purpose. (4) (5) (6) (7) In any place open to the public, no person either individually or as part of a group shall procure or attempt to procure a handout from another in an aggressive or intimidating manner.
Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such purpose or behavior is manifested are the following: that such person is a known panhandler; that such person continues to beckon to, accost or follow or ask passer(s)by for a handout after the passer(s)-by has failed to respond or has told the person “no”; that such person engages in a course of conduct or commits any act which harasses or intimidates the passer(s)-by; or that such person utilizes or attempts to utilize bodily gestures or physical contact to impede the path of any passer(s)-by, including but not limited to unwanted touching or blocking the path or impeding the free movement of the passer(s)-by.
Behavior shall be construed as aggressive or intimidating if a reasonably prudent individual could be deterred from passing through or remaining in or near any thoroughfare or place open to be the public because of fear, concern or apprehension of said behavior. The violator’s conduct must be such as to demonstrate a specific intent to induce, solicit, or procure from another goods or money by aggressive or intimidating behavior.
No arrest shall be made for a violation of this subsection unless the arresting officer first affords such person an opportunity to explain such conduct, and no one shall be convicted of violating this subsection if it appears at trial that the explanation given was true and disclosed a lawful purpose. It shall be unlawful for any person to procure or attempt to procure a handout within twenty-five (25) feet of any of the following locations: (a) an alcohol licensed establishment; (b) (c) (d) (e) Central Business District; an intersection; an open sidewalk café; or an automatic teller machine (ATM).
Any person violating this section shall be subject to a forfeiture of not less than ten dollars ($10) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), notwithstanding any provision of this chapter setting a different penalty.
Severability . The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is held to be invalid or unconstitutional or if the application of any provision of this section to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such holding shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section which can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provisions or applications. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Common Council that this section would have been adopted had any invalid or unconstitutional provision or applications not been included herein.
You can find this documentation here.