The answer to that is proper policing force, not custom laws that ban individuals from begging. It's not a beggars fault if a non-harassing "got any change" makes you feel uncomfortable.
At what point am I "allowed" to feel uncomfortable? Is it the first time in a day when I'm asked for change outside the Post Office? Is it the second or third time in a day when I'm asked for change at the bus stop? How about the fourth, fifth, and sixth time when I'm asked for change at the major transfer point for buses and trains where lots of people have to wait? Or the seventh when I'm coming out of an office building?
Why do people get to impose themselves on me, from advertisers to panhandlers to petition gatherers, repeatedly, day in and day out? I'm not talking about ambient noise or other people going about their business, chatting with each other and interacting how they want to interact. Why is it OK for me to be interrupted multiple times a day--especially when I'm in places where I have no other choice than to be--before I get to say I'm "uncomfortable?"
I realize that the law can and probably will be imposed unfairly and I disagree with the overly broad impact that it will have, but I can slightly understand the motivation behind the original idea.
> At what point am I "allowed" to feel uncomfortable? Is it the first time in a day when I'm asked for change outside the Post Office? Is it the second or third time in a day when I'm asked for change at the bus stop? How about the fourth, fifth, and sixth time when I'm asked for change at the major transfer point for buses and trains where lots of people have to wait? Or the seventh when I'm coming out of an office building?
The solution to your discomfort is for homelessness to be tackled meaningfully, not to have the police get extra authority to remove those people from your sight.
I spent several years traveling only by public transit and running into beggars at least twice a day. During that same period, I also once had a cop pull up to a bus stop, start harassing me and actually threaten to arrest me for standing there (I was waiting for the last bus of the night). Guess which experience was worse?
Again, if the advertisers, panhandlers and petitioners are not harassing you (which violates existing laws), what exactly is the problem? Not to mention that some places may have laws banning certain practises outright. If enough people are feeling uncomfortable by non-harassing panhandlers, then a general no panhandling law will be passed. Some places (a city in Brazil) has a no advertising law.
The question isn't about someone's right to feel comfortable, it's laws targeting an individual instead of a class. A place decides no petitioning? Sure, fine (putting aside any civil rights issues). A place decides petitioning is OK, unless they don't like a specific petitioner? How does that make sense? If the petitioner is acting correctly, why should they get a ban? And if they aren't, why isn't their unacceptable behaviour categorically banned?
Each individual is not harassing me but in the aggregate it is annoying and harassing. That's why I retold one (particularly bad) day like I did. One person, fine. Eight people, fuck it I'm staying indoors today. Each person was acting lawfully but the point is that all of them added together were a nuisance, especially since that kind of activity--leafleting, panhandling, and petition gathering in particular--gather around places where people must be. If I need to take route 5B into downtown, I have no choice but to be at a bus stop along route 5B so I can't just remove myself from the situation. At some point, "people have no right to not be annoyed" turns into "people have the right to impose annoyances on others" and I think that preventing this change is a worthwhile goal, even though the law from this article goes too far.
I don't know about the culture where you come from / where you are, But isn't being in public just that? Being in public. When you get out there, you do open yourself for social interaction and conversation / nods / smiles / chit chat and even pan handling.
As long as they are not directly accosting you, how is this their problem? How do you expect an individual person to know that you have been already approached 8 times?
At least where I come from, the logic goes like this: You don't want to deal with the public? Don't be in public. YMMV.
Poverty is not the issue, though it is the cause. Restated, I have no problem with someone begging for change _because they are poor_. The problem comes from being hassled, repeatedly, daily, by anywhere from 1 to 8 (not kidding, kept count) people who are trying to sell me something, trying to get me to give them change, or trying to have me sign a petition of some sort. Where does the line for my choosing not to interact with anyone blur into being forcibly interacted with?
It's a free country, and you're in a public place. The right to make other people feel uncomfortable is far more important than the right to not feel uncomfortable.
Why do people get to impose themselves on me, from advertisers to panhandlers to petition gatherers, repeatedly, day in and day out? I'm not talking about ambient noise or other people going about their business, chatting with each other and interacting how they want to interact. Why is it OK for me to be interrupted multiple times a day--especially when I'm in places where I have no other choice than to be--before I get to say I'm "uncomfortable?"
I realize that the law can and probably will be imposed unfairly and I disagree with the overly broad impact that it will have, but I can slightly understand the motivation behind the original idea.