CLAYTON — It was mid-May. The ºüÀêÊÓƵ County Council was considering a bill that would largely ban people from standing or walking in county roadways.
And the issue was causing a fuss: People with disabilities were worried. Residents complained it could make their jogs illegal. Some suspected the council was looking to keep panhandlers from approaching drivers.
The bill’s sponsor, Councilman Ernie Trakas, insisted it wasn’t aimed at any one activity. He was just trying to keep residents safe.
“The simple fact of the matter is we have dangerous conditions that are existing on our roadways,†Trakas, a Republican from South County, said at a council meeting then. “We have a responsibility as a legislative body to do everything we can to address it. The idea that it is targeting against panhandling is just not accurate. They’re not singled out in any way, shape or form.â€
People are also reading…
But emails recently obtained by the Post-Dispatch through an open records request show that Trakas and other council members indeed had panhandling in mind when they worked on the bill.
“Thank you for contacting me regarding vagrancy and panhandling on roads in south ºüÀêÊÓƵ County,†Trakas wrote in reply to a constituent in April. The county had an ordinance to address the issue, Trakas said in the email, but it was shut down by a federal judge, who said the law violated First Amendment rights to free speech.
“I have been working with the ºüÀêÊÓƵ County Counselor’s office to craft legislation creating a new ordinance that will survive any court challenge,†Trakas continued. “I will be introducing this legislation on April 25, 2023.â€
And he did.
Trakas now says that those emails do not show that the bill was targeting panhandling. It was designed to “cure all infirmities of the prior ordinance,†he said.
“Why would I want to draft something that a court would find fault with? I wanted something drafted that I had reasonable confidence would be fair and neutral,†Trakas said in an interview. “But the panhandling was tertiary at best.â€
Still, he wasn’t the only council member to discuss the bill with constituents.
A losing legal battle
Roadway panhandling has been a thorn in the side of county officials for years. But the issue came to a head four years ago.
In June 2019, Robert Fernandez, a homeless man, against ºüÀêÊÓƵ County alleging police had cited him more than 30 times and arrested him four times for begging in roadways, violating his right to free speech. That October, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. granted a preliminary injunction against the county from enforcing its vagrancy and solicitation ordinances.
The council scrambled to update the laws. County attorneys recommended it repeal at least one, banning vagrancy. Trakas suggested a new ordinance, empowering police to ticket aggressive panhandlers who could cause “a reasonable person to fear bodily harm.†The council voted 4-3 against it, and tabled the issue.
Then, in 2021, Limbaugh ruled in favor of Fernandez, struck down three county ordinances, awarded Fernandez $150,000 and his attorneys another $139,000.
The fight, however, continued. Last year, officials from several suburban cities said street begging was surging, as were resident complaints. They began to change their own municipal ordinances in hopes of keeping panhandlers off streets.
By December, Fernandez was back in front of a judge. This time, the West County suburb of Des Peres had cited him for seeking donations near the West County Center mall.
“He does what he does,†Fernandez’ attorney, Bevis Schock, told municipal Judge Chuck H. Billings at the hearing. “I’m here today to defend his right to do so.â€
Des Peres City Administrator Douglas Harms said then that the city had long banned soliciting on roadways, both for charities and for people asking for cash.
“It’s purely a matter of public safety,†Harms said then. “We get a lot of phone calls from people with safety concerns about them in the medians.â€
In April of this year, a county resident contacted Trakas. He said panhandling was getting worse at Interstate 55 and Bayless Avenue. Several people were often congregating there, asking for money and occasionally harassing passersby, he said.
“This is creating a number of issues for the community, including increased traffic congestion, inordinate amounts of garbage strewn around the area, and the potential for accidents as people are walking in and out of traffic,†he wrote.
It needs to be addressed, he said.
“It makes our city appear dirty, unsafe, and unwelcoming.â€
‘Bill 86 is not what you think it is’
A few days later, on April 21, Republican Councilman Mark Harder of Ballwin emailed Trakas and Councilman Dennis Hancock, a Republican from Fenton, about a conversation he had with Manchester’s chief of police about how well the city’s laws work to curb “people in the roadways soliciting.â€
Chief Scott Will told Harder that officers require panhandlers to solicit from the sidewalk and if they want to collect a donation, they must tell the driver to meet them at a nearby parking lot.
“So far, no one has chosen to work under those guidelines,†Will wrote. “Instead, they have just relocated.â€
“Guys. FYI,†Harder wrote to Trakas and Hancock. “They are having good outcomes.â€
Trakas introduced Bill 86 on April 25. It barred being in the roadway on any street in the county, with a few exceptions, including streets without sidewalks.
At the next council meeting a week later, Councilwoman Lisa Clancy, a Democrat from Maplewood, said the bill unfairly targeted homeless people. Within a few days, joggers, walkers, people with disabilities and pedestrian safety groups said the bill would unfairly target them, too. It represented a step backward, they said, in developing safe streets for people who aren’t in a car.
And emails from residents started flowing into council members’ inboxes. Both sides seemed to think it was about panhandling.
“While I understand the goal is related to panhandlers, this bill needs to be re-thought,†wrote a Wildwood resident. “It is supposed to improve pedestrian safety, but instead it prohibits very broad activity.â€
“I hope you all see the benefits of passing this bill,†wrote an Affton resident, “not only for those looking for a handout but for the drivers who have to sometimes drive around to miss hitting them.â€
“Daily, I have to cross Old State (Road) when I walk my dog because there is no sidewalk or crosswalk,†wrote an Ellisville resident. “This bill will put an undue burden upon our community for residents such as myself.â€
But to the last note, at least, Harder responded:
“Bill 86 is not what you think it is or what you have been told,†he wrote. “This bill is about loitering and walking on medians and in the traffic lanes of major roads and intersections.â€
Trakas delayed the bill a week to work with county attorneys on possible tweaks. But he ultimately moved forward with the original bill because any changes would put the county at risk of a discrimination lawsuit, he said.
The bill passed the seven-member council with four votes on May 17.
By the end, however, multiple advocacy groups stepped in. The local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, lobbied County Executive Sam Page to veto the bill. It was, the ACLU said, “a clear attempt to target already marginalized groups, namely, the unhoused.â€
Trakas and Harder both maintained the bill had nothing to do with panhandling.
Still, on May 30, Page vetoed it. It would have unfairly affected people with disabilities, among others, he said.
He didn’t mention roadside panhandling.