| OCR Text |
Show A-26 The Park Record ACLU targets panhandling ordinance in mountain town HUGH CAREY /SUMMIT DAILY NEWS A panhandler sits on a median along Highway 9 in Frisco, Colorado, Tuesday. The American Civil Liberties Union is demanding that Blue River, along with a handful of other Colorado municipalities, repeal “unconstitutional” anti-panhandling laws. Organization says laws violate 1st Amendment SAWYER D’ARGONNE Summit Daily BLUE RIVER, Colo. – Is panhandling a free speech issue? The American Civil Liberties Union thinks so, and it’s demanding that Colorado towns repeal ordinances that prohibit peaceful panhandling. The ACLU penned a letter to the Town of Blue River earlier this week condemning the town’s loitering ordinance in the town code, which makes it a crime to “loiter for the purpose of begging.” “These outdated ordinances, which prohibit peaceful, nonintrusive requests for charity, must be taken off the books,” said Rebecca Wallace, ACLU of Colorado staff attorney. “As courts across the country, and here in Colorado, have recognized, a plea for help is a communication that is protected by the First Amendment.” Under Blue River town codes, loitering is defined as “to be dilatory, to stand idly around, to linger, delay or wander about, or to remain, abide or tarry in a public place.” Loitering for the purpose of begging, or panhandling, is considered a Class 1 petty offense, punishable in Colorado by up to six months in jail, a $500 fine or both. In a letter signed by Wallace and Eric Tars, senior attorney for the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, the ACLU describes the ordinance as unconstitutionally targeting poor and homeless individuals, and that the solicitation of charity is protected under the First Amendment. The letter noted a number of court cases to bolster their stance, including Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1980 which states: “Charitable appeals for funds, on the street or door-to-door, involve a variety of speech interests — communication of information, dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and advocacy of causes — that are within the First Amendment.” They also cited Loper v. New York City Police Department, a 1993 U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit decision which reads: “Begging frequently is accompanied by speech indicating the need for food, shelter, clothing, medical care or transportation…We see little difference between those who solicit for organized charities and those who solicit for themselves in regard to the message conveyed. The former are communicating the needs of others while the latter are communicating their personal needs. Both solicit the charity of others. The distinction is not a significant one for First Amendment purposes.” John Dunn, attorney for the town of Blue River, was unperturbed by the ALCU’s demands. He said that, on top of a relative scarcity of panhandlers in town, the loitering ordinance has been in the town code for years with little to no enforcement. “I doubt that particular section of the ordinance has ever been enforced,” said Dunn. “If you adopt the usual municipal offenses that everyone seemed to have years ago it gets included. So it’s been on the books from the start, but hasn’t been enforced.” Despite the historical lack of enforcement of the ordinance, the ACLU is pushing for its expulsion from the town code altogether, citing worries that law enforcement officers could review the municipal code and enforce the ordinance regardless of the current culture of acceptance. Dunn said that the Town Board of Trustees had not yet asked him to voice an opinion on whether or not to repeal the ordinance, and that he wouldn’t unless asked. He did note, however, that the board would review the matter, and a response would be sent to the ACLU in the near future. “This is new information to the town, and we will be looking into the content of this request, and staying focused on the best interests of the residents of the town,” said Blue River Mayor Toby Babish. Blue River is far from the only town to have received a letter. The ACLU reached out to 31 cities across the state demanding similar repeals of laws restricting panhandling as part of a coordinated effort organized by the National Center on Homelessness & Poverty. Laws on panhandling are relatively common, though most distinguish between panhandling and “aggressive panhandling.” Both Breckenridge and Frisco have ordinances prohibiting aggressive panhandling that address physical contact, obstruction of traffic and similar issues. Silverthorne and Dillon both have loitering ordinances in the books, though neither prohibits soliciting charity. Trial date set for Utah man accused of filming suicide Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY – A judge has set a trial date for a Utah man accused of encouraging a high school friend to hang herself and filming the act. Court records show 19-yearold Tyerell Przybycien is set to go on trial for murder starting Dec. 5. Prosecutors say he was fascinated with death and told a friend that helping her would be “like getting away with murder.” They say Przybycien bought a rope and tied the noose for the 16-year-old girl who hanged herself in Spanish Fork Canyon in May 2017. Defense attorneys argue Jchandra Brown left suicide notes showing she made the choice herself, and Przybycien’s role did not amount to murder. Judge James Brady decided that while the case is unusual, the allegations Przybycien was deeply involved with the suicide were strong enough to warrant a murder charge. Sat/Sun/Mon/Tues, September 1-4, 2018 Writers on the range By Pete McBride The much-diminished Colorado River One morning this summer, I stepped onto my paddleboard and glided into the headwaters of the Colorado River. To my amazement, the Roaring Fork, a tributary of the Colorado in the western half of the state, was far from roaring. The stream was more like the kind of babbling brook you might find during a hot late summer. But it wasn’t anywhere near the dog days of August. It was still June. A splashy spring runoff, which typically appears in late May and June, delights boaters and allows water managers a chance to breathe easy. But this year, it was nowhere in sight. There was certainly no hint of it in the few, quilt-like patches of snow that clung to Colorado’s 14,000-foot peaks. Unfortunately, this is the new normal. Hydrologists have noted that the whitewater runoff came frighteningly earlier than usual this year, and the amount of water will go down as one of the lowest ever recorded. Most of us know that that’s bad news, because the Colorado River quenches the thirst of some 40 million people across the Southwest, Los Angeles and Southern California and parts of Mexico. As I navigated downstream, I marveled at the number of rocks already rising above the surface and the crystalline clear flow shrouding them. Fish need cool water to survive, and I knew that in the months ahead, the water would grow ever warmer. Rivers fluctuate from year to year, so below-average years aren’t out of the norm. But the Colorado River has already experienced over two decades of drought due to climate change, not to mention a history of over-allocation and increased demands from a growing popu- lation. As a result, it is a wrungout river — from, here, where I was paddling, to some 1,400 miles downstream. The Colorado River Delta, once the largest desert estuary in North America, is also struggling today. Not a drop of the river that once carved the Grand Canyon actually reaches the sea anymore. I know, because I’ve followed the river, mostly on foot, to its end numerous times as a photographer and filmmaker, documenting the rapidly changing state of my backyard If we continue to ask too much of water, this finite and incredibly valuable resource, it will simply disappear. And then, like civilizations before us, we, too, will be forced to flee.” river, the place where I learned to fish and swim as a child. Shrinking snowpacks and low waterways will eventually affect everyone. As our watershed goes, so goes much of Colorado’s recreation-based, tourist economy. The white bathtub rings that already mark the West’s major reservoirs, Lakes Powell and Mead, are not only stark reminders of the water levels we once had; they also foreshadow what may come. If we continue to ask too much of water, this finite and incredibly valuable resource, it will simply disappear. And then, like civilizations before us, we, too, will be forced to flee. This year, our rivers experienced a remarkably thirsty start, and they are even lower now, as we near the end of August. With predictions for continued statewide population growth and hotter and drier conditions becoming commonplace, it is past time to start thinking — and voting — to protect our water. Colorado’s Water Plan is a good place start. The Water Plan was developed from the ground up and is intended to protect all of Colorado’s water needs, including the needs of our rivers and streams for water. Its proposals include conservation, alternative methods of utilizing agricultural water that do not result in the permanent dry-up of farmland, and support for those water projects that meet the necessary requirements. Our network of moving water needs as much help as Colorado’s roads and bridges. Coloradans need to let their legislators and local leaders know how much they care and ask them to support additional funding to protect and improve our vital waterways. We don’t have much time. We need to insist on prioritizing the benefits of a healthy recreation and tourism industry and, of course, protect the fish and wildlife that depend on these rivers for their very existence. l Pete McBride is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News (hcn.org). A native Coloradan, he is a photographer, filmmaker and author who has focused on the Colorado River watershed. He lives in the Roaring Fork Valley of Colorado. Writers on the range By Greg Zimmerman Corporate interests taint Interior Department What if I told you that a multibillion-dollar company decided to trademark the name of one of America’s most prized national parks? And that the company then sued the United States to defend its purported trademark? And that to top it all off, that company has been invited into the inner circle of government by a now-indicted member of Congress, meeting in private with a Cabinet secretary and also sitting on a government advisory panel? You’d probably reply that it all sounds outrageous, and that, if it’s true, it’s a genuinely shocking example of a corrupt presidential administration. Unfortunately, it’s true. This story begins in 2015, when Delaware North, a New York-based hospitality and concessions business, lost the contract to run Yosemite National Park’s hotels, restaurants and gift shops. The company had held the contract for more than two decades, during which time it quietly trademarked names and images associated with iconic landmarks inside Yosemite, including the Ahwahnee Hotel, a national historic landmark, the likeness of Half Dome, and even the phrase “Yosemite National Park.” Scott Gediman, the spokesman for Yosemite National Park, wasn’t happy with the name grab, telling The New York Times, “We feel strongly that the names belong to the American people.” Rather than refocusing its expansive concessions business after losing the Yosemite contract, the company decided to take the U.S. government — and by extension the American public — to federal claims court, demanding $50 million for its surreptitiously acquired trademarks. The National Park Service, of course, maintains the trademarks aren’t valid. Even if they were, they would be worth no more than $3.5 million. A review of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database indicates that Delaware North is unique among concessionaires in holding trademarks to America’s parks. The litigation between the National Park Service and Delaware North remains far from resolved, but, in the meantime, the National Park Service was forced to rename historic landmarks inside the national park. Now the Calvin Coolidge-era Ahwahnee Hotel is the Majestic Yosemite Hotel, the Wawona Hotel is Big Trees Lodge, and Curry Village is Half Dome Village. Despite Delaware North’s questionable business practices and the company’s ongoing legal fight with the U.S. government, it is no pariah in President Despite Delaware North’s questionable business practices and the company’s ongoing legal fight with the U.S. government, it is no pariah in President Donald Trump’s Washington.” Donald Trump’s Washington. The Trump administration has welcomed Delaware North with open arms, granting the company’s executives an audience at the highest levels of government. When Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke announced his “Made in America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee, included in the list of 15 members was Jerry Jacobs Jr., the billionaire co-CEO of Delaware North. Jacobs Jr. joins a group of business executives and industry lobbyists tasked with expanding so-called public-private partnerships in national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges and other American publicly owned lands. Setting aside the important question of whether we should be privatizing park functions, it’s hard to defend an individual who has so blatantly abused the public’s trust. Delaware North’s presence on the “Made in America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee is not an isolated incident. Last month, CNN reported that Secretary Zinke held a private meeting with three executives from Delaware North, including Jacobs Jr., along with New York Republican Rep. Chris Collins. Collins, who federal prosecutors have charged with insider trading, counts Delaware North as his largest campaign contributor during his congressional career. Likely realizing the unfortunate optics of the Zinke-Delaware North meeting, the Interior Department went to great lengths to conceal the names of the participants on the secretary’s official schedules. But when briefing materials of the meeting were released through a Freedom of Information Act request, the true purpose of the meeting was there in black-andwhite. It was “for company executives to provide an overview from Delaware North regarding how the Park Service works with concessionaires.” A company this greedy, whose founders are cashing in by fleecing American taxpayers and our prized public lands, should not be welcomed in the halls of power. But we have come to expect this kind of behavior from members of President Trump’s cabinet, Secretary Zinke included. In less than two years on the job, Zinke has thrown open the doors to campaign donors, family business friends and the executives of the very corporations he is supposed to be regulating. All the while, he has consistently ignored input from the American public, as well as from pretty much anyone who isn’t a potential donor. Now under the cloud of more than a dozen investigations, Secretary Zinke might have become so besmirched that even President Trump finds him too much to stomach. Greg Zimmerman is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News (hcn.org). He is the deputy director at the Center for Western Priorities, a public-lands policy organization based in Denver, Colorado. |
