The Manhattan Project
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
Increased Urban Walkability For The Win
D.C. United Icon Ben Olsen To Retire
Via WaPo, it seems Ward 1 D.C. Council member Jim Graham has brought back one of his favorite chestnuts, a piece of anti-loitering legislation that would allow police officers to issue $300 fines to groups of two or more people gathered in areas that police have determined are "known for illegal activity."
Graham introduced similar bills in 2005 and 2007. Both times, the legislation was torpedoed by civil rights concerns. This version would apparently give the mayor authority to create rules that would protect "persons who are engaged in assembly protected by the Constitution." How that would actually work seems a bit murky, but the Post reports that this time around, Graham has more supporters on the Council: five other members (Alexander, Bowser, Kwame Brown, Catania and Evans) signed on as co-sponsors.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Sorry for the formatting error...
What totally lame passing of the buck by Graham! He knows his legislation has no chance of passage (yet he can tell his constituents he's 'doing something' to deal with the problem). And his solution to the First Amendment concerns is to simply punt the entire issue and leave it up to the Mayor to figure out. What a total, utter, and shameless wuss.
If you're man enough to propose limitations on First Amendment rights, then be man enough to say how those limitations will be decided upon, rather than being a giant wussy and passing the buck to someone else.
Typical Grahamstanding.
Which is exactly why the Council should pass the Anti-pointless Unenforceable Legislation Act of 2009. This must be done before Jar-jar petitions the Council to vote Graham emergency powers so he can assemble a vast clone army to fight the loiterers.
Hmmm...I typically keep DCist open on my computer all day and read updates as they pop up. Is that considered cyber-loitering? I mean, let's be honest...some of the members of the commentariat (myself included) are probably among the seediest of characters, so I think it's pretty safe to say that this site is a haven for 'known illegal activity,' especially with all the junkpunching and other nefarious goings-on. So...considering all that, is Senor Graham going to bring the pain down on me?? Hmmmm?
there are anti-loitering laws in other jurisdictions around the US, right? so what legal wrangling has allowed those laws to exist but preclude anything similar from taking root here in the district?
They haven't yet been challenged? Chicago tried to pass an anti-loitering [anti-Gang laws, they said they were] law a number of years ago, it got struck down very quickly.
See Chicago v. Morales for a start
Graham's future headlines: 4 white friends hanging around on their bikes talking about a dog parks-- fine. 4 black guys hanging around talking about global lending practices-- police crack down. Loitering by the "right" people is usually called "vibrant community life"
K street is "known for illegal activity" does that mean no groups of two or more allowed to stand in one place for more than ten minutes?
I dunno, I'm kinda for this, at least in residential areas. I'm continually amazed at the groups of young men standing on neighborhood street corners at 11pm when it's 10 degrees outside. I sincerely doubt that anyone is hosting a "salon."
Occasionally the cops decide that loitering is a "no-no for a week at a time in certain areas by calling it a "drug free week." During the other weeks our streets are an open drug market I guess.
Look, just because someone's functionally illiterate, it doesn't mean they can't hold an Algonquin roundtable-style salon. They could be debating the finer points of what blunt goes with which cognac, or Schoolly D's use of diminished sevenths in his ouevre.
All this standing around doing nothing. The 7-11's and the local schoolyards. Where are the chairs?
I'm fine with anyone standing around chatting harmlessly anywhere really, but I'm not fine with a group yelling everything they say while drinking beer, selling drugs and urinating on my house all day and all evening until very very late every single day of the year when I have to work shift work and have to try to sleep through it. These people do not live in my neighborhood and they need to go home! And they sit on my front steps and on the front porch of the vacant house next door, now that is the definition of LOITERING!
'Areas known for illegal activity' - isn't that pretty much the entire city? People in this city do as they please. D.C. is the freakin' wild west.
Does anyone have a good summary of loitering laws in other cities? My gut feeling is that unless they are very specific they are struck down.
But I've heard that at least few have stuck around.
It would be GREAT if something could be done about the Mt Pleasant Babosas who make sport of intimidating women pedestrians. with a pipe.
I completely support this bill and hope that the DC Govt. has the balls to stand up & pass it. This would be a great tool to discourage the groups & gangs roaming the streets looking to mug people, the prostitues and the drug dealers in the parks & on the streets.
Thanks Jim for looking out for us - don't give up!