Prop 13-143

The movers and shakers of Indianapolis have put a lot of effort and money into the city's image. This makes the language in a new panhandling ordinance peculiar, for it limits street performance in a way that will effectively ban it in the downtown area. As currently written, Prop 143 refers to performance with no verbal request for money, as passive solicitation.  While this version does not ban such activity entirely, it places restrictions that would make it impossible to busk in most populated areas, and after 8pm. 

Many performers are miffed at being called panhandlers, and are focused on changing the proposition to exclude musicians and performers from the ban. This petition by the Indianapolis Acoustic Music group wants a re-write to allow street performance.

I understand the outrage at having one's work labeled panhandling, when it so clearly is not. But I also find it highly offensive that one's access to public areas would be determined by desirability. This seems to be the argument for re-writing the proposition, rather than stopping it. 

Real cities have a range of activity and of people. While safety can be a justifiable reason for limiting activity, this does not include banning people from public simply because they make some people uncomfortable. There are already laws regulating panhandling behavior. One cannot verbally request money or be aggressive in any way. Still, many city leaders have openly sought the removal of panhandlers from the downtown area, because it doesn't look good for the city. 

It's a no-brainer that the artists should not, and ultimately will not, be banned. So why are they specifically named in this proposition? I can't help but wonder if they are being used to do the dirty work...of drawing the line of exclusion between themselves and the panhandlers. Their demand for an exception sets up a dangerous precedent.

If the government allows performers and not panhandlers, then the government also determines what acceptably qualifies as performance (or sets up an organization to do so). By asking for an exception which distinguishes them from panhandlers, artists are inviting the government to regulate their art.

If Prop 13-143 passes with an exception for street performers, it may mark the end for authentic activity in downtown Indianapolis. 

Grassroots Voter Disenfranchisement

My polling spot has been in the same school for about 10 years. It stayed there even after the districts were condensed in 2007. This year it was moved to a public works building a few blocks away. The sign posted on the school forwards voters to a different place, which is over 3 miles away. The sign is wrong and multiple calls by different people to various officials failed to correct this.

After I went to the erroneous spot, a Painters Union building, they were extremely helpful. They were aware of the problem, had made calls, could not get any help fixing it. One person even had gone over and hung a correct sign over the wrong one, but this was torn down (could have been by someone who thought the correct sign was a trick). At one point, a poll worker looked me straight in the eye and said "they don't want you to vote".

I went to the correct polling place, and asked them about the incorrect sign. Several workers muttered various things under their breath, I couldn't catch the specifics, but it was clear that they were very frustrated by the situation. They did say they had called everyone, all the way up to the commissioner.

I went home and made all sorts of calls. The sign stayed incorrect all day. I went over and hung out for a few hours at the end of the day, and directed people to the correct site. The people who showed up at the old site were a very different demographic from those who I saw at the correct site (when I voted). (I did entertain the thought of selectively informing people of the error. But I had already decided I couldn't do that, and then it was not an issue, since those who appeared to be from the other party were not showing up at the old site [someone got the memo]).

At the very least this was sloppy, careless, and disrespectful of the voting process. At worst.....