File Ref. #087
f'{.eF- tJ 87 - /HL (J) . t!- fJ I 7 7 ~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
City Manager's Office
Interoffice Memorandum
m
To:
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners
Assistant City Managers
Executive Assistants to the City Manager
Murray Dubbin, City Attorney
Richard Barreto, Police Chief
Department Directors
Date: August 26, 1998
From:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
Subject: Roundtable Meeting, Wednesday, September 2, 1998,4:00 PM
First Floor Conference Room
Nationally recognized consultant/attorney Rob Teir has completed his analysis of the issues affecting
the quality of life in our community, specifically, the Washington A venue area. He has made a
series of thought-provoking recommendations in the attached report.
Mr. Teir is returning to Miami Beach on September 2, and will discuss his findings in depth. Please
review the report and plan to attend and participate in this important discussion which has both
policy and budgetary implications.
RS:pw
Attachment
f: \cmgr\$all~mdtable. 902
("') \.D
-I ex:> ;0
-< :x:-
C} c m
G")
I ()
P"I N
-,-, -J rn
.-'"
:x
u:' -0 <
::J:
0 m
..,., fI.1
.." CJ
.s::-
('") N
rra
/' ",
--;\
7USTNiyrW()[(1G1N9 [(191fT"
c,01lFF-01lTJ1I9 T~X 9F-OWJ1I9 PJSOF-PXF- J1I MJA-MJ E>IA-c,~
- A Report to the City of Miami Beach
THE CENTER FOR LIVABLE CITIES, INC.
1400 Hamilton Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20011-3856
(202) 722-5022
Fax: (202) 291-2002
E-Mail: CLCAmerica@aol.com
Summer 1998
A Note on Referring to Miami Beach
Pursuant to local parlance, we have adopted the designation "the
Beach" to refer to Miami Beach. When we want to refer to the sandy part,
we use the lower case "beach." We also use "the City" to refer to the Miami
Beach city government. The lower case "city" refers to the geographical
unit.
-11-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................. I
Methodology and Limitations .................................................... 2
Miami Beach and What it Has to Lose ............................................. 3
Goals ....................................................................... 4
What Success Can Look .................................................. 4
Improvements that Benefit both Residents and Visitors .......................... 5
Start by Changing the Message ................................................... 6
Maintaining what the City has Chosen to Create. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Paying the Band . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Police Resources ........................................................ 7
Off Duty Police as Nightclub Security. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Other Enforcement Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Backing up the Police Officer .............................................. 9
Arrest Times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Nightclubs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II
Whining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
But What About the Clubs' Investment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Consistency ........................................................... 12
Age Restrictions ....................................................... 13
Noise ................................................................ 14
Increasing Penalties for Follow-On Infractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Closing Times ......................................................... 16
Occupancy Levels ...................................................... 16
Spreading Enforcement Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fliers and Leafleting .................................................... 17
Cleaning Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Q . L' . .
ueumg ImItatIOns .................................................... 18
Concentration Restrictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Licensing Promoters .................................................... 20
On the Street ................................................................ 20
Juvenile Curfew Ordinance ...............................................20
Public Intoxication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Illegal Alcohol Sales .................................................... 22
-111-
Use of the Sidewalks ....................................................23
Automobile Cruising .................................................... 23
Street Vending '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Cleanliness and Aesthetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Vacant Property ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Addressing Homelessness in Miami Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Life on the Streets ...................................................... 26
A Head Start in Dealing with Homelessness: The Area's Assets ..................27
Voluntary Homelessness .................................................27
H.A.C. ............................................................... 28
Outreach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Use of the Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Begging .............................................................. 30
Dumpsters and Trash Cans ...............................................31
Other Enforcement Issues ................................................ 32
Ticket Lines ........................................................... 32
The Homeless Committee ................................................ 32
Pottinger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Lack of Business Improvement Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE OF A SIDEWALK USE ORDINANCE .................... vi
APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE OF AN ANTI-AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING ORDINANCE. ix
APPENDIX C: EXCESSIVE NOISE ORDINANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. XlI
APPENDIX D: LAS VEGAS LEAFLETING ORDINANCE ......................... xv
APPENDIX E: JUDICIAL WATCH PROGRAM IN ATLANTA.................... XVlI
APPENDIX F: CLC TESTIMONY TO THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE
ON THE EFFECT OF BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRlCTS ............. xviii
-IV-
"JUST NOT WORKING RIGHT"
CONFRONTING THE GROWING DISORDER IN MIAMI BEACH
A REPORT BY THE CENTER FOR LIVABLE CITIES, INe.
1. Introduction
The Center for Livable Cities, Inc. (CLC) was asked by the Miami Beach City
Manager's office and the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation ("MBCDC") to
come to the city, assess the street order maintenance issues confronting Washington A venue and
other areas of the city, and prepare a report with recommendations. The project was also
arranged with the support and cooperation of the Miami Beach Police Department.
CLC's work was brought to the attention of the City after city officials heard one
of our presentations at a conference of the International Dov-.ntown Association. By that time,
both the City Manager and the City Commission had expressed a wish to address the city's order
maintenance problems in a comprehensive manner. The City Commission has since held two
hearings on the subject, during one of which Mayor Kasdin referred to the situation on
Washington Avenue as a "crisis."
CLC is a national non-profit research and advocacy group, dedicated to improving
the quality of urban life in the United States. CLC works with dozens of urban communities and
city governments, assisting them by providing model ordinances, conducting research into the
efficacy and constitutionality of approaches to street order maintenance problems, participating
in conferences, making public presentations, participating in debates, providing city council
testimony, and helping defend useful legislation in court. We have also discussed these issues in
the broadcast and print media, both nationally and locally, including opinion-editorials in the
Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Sacramento Bee, Dallas Morning A'C>1!S, and
appearances on CNN, the Today Show, National Public Radio, and the Fox News Network. We
have also published law review and other professional journal articles to set forth our research
and conclusions on these subjects.
CLC's experience includes helping to draft the panhandling control ordinance
adopted in Atlanta, New York, Phoenix, Washington, Boston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and
Sunnyvale. We have also helped defend street order maintenance initiatives in Seattle, San
Francisco, Dallas, Los Angeles, Atlanta. and Beaufort, South Carolina. We have consulted on-
site with dov-.ntov-.n associations in San Diego, Riverside, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Houston,
Roanoke. etc.
- 1-
CLC exists to assist urban communities in making their public spaces clean.
orderly, safe, and welcoming.
II. Methodology and Limitations
CLC conducted two formal visits to Miami Beach. During these visits, we met
with and interviewed a wide variety of people, who offered a wide variety of observations about
street order maintenance issues in the city. Our interviewees included social service providers.
elected and appointed city officials, nightclub O\\l1erS, merchants, homeless people, police
officers, and other interested citizens.
In addition, we were provided with and read numerous ordinances adopted or
under consideration by the City, local newspaper articles and columns on these issues, as well as
information on the city's (and region's) homeless problem collected by local social service
providers.
And we walked. Because one can learn only so much by listening to even the
most informed people talk in meeting rooms, we walked the streets of Miami Beach, especially
Washington Avenue, at all hours of the day and night, on our own and accompanied by city
officials.
Our report was submitted, in draft form, to the City Manager's Office, MBCDC,
and to the Assistant Police Chief. The draft elicited many comments, suggestions, and some
corrections, which formed the basis for the revisions in this final version.
Even with this extensive process. providing observations and recommendations
after two relatively short visits is a risky undertaking. We are not from, and do not live, in Miami
Beach. We cannot know. after two visits, all of the attributes of the problems confronting the
city. Moreover, we did not investigate police practices, city finances, county criminal justice
operations. or the opinions of the city's population. We also did not research the state or county
limitations upon the city's political choices and regulatory reach.
That said, we are not strangers to Miami Beach. This report's author has been to
the city nearly two dozen times. in over thirty visits to south Florida. It is because of our relative
familiarity and fondness for the city - and what it has to offer residents and visitors - that we are
eager to help the City address these problems in an effective, fair manner.
-'-
III. Miami Beach and What it Has to Lose
Miami Beach is successful. This report is aimed at keeping it that way, and in
ensuring that its success is not inimical with the community's other goals.
In many of the communities where CLC and its staff have had the privilege of
working, we were confronted with empty. abandoned streets. vacant storefronts, apartment
buildings with more vacancies than leased units, and a population/tax base that has been
shrinking for years. In many of these cities, those with choices have chosen not to be in these
public spaces, in these dO\\TItowns, or in these cities.
This is hardly the situation in Miami Beach. Rather. the Beach's population is
increasing. As a destination to visit, the city is tremendously popular, with people in the region,
from other areas of the country, and from abroad. Luxury condominiums are being (and have
been) built, and hotels have been renovated and are generating high room rates. A large
convention hotel is being built with private investment and city subsidies.
People are coming to Miami Beach because of the unique beauty and color of its
art deco architecture. They are also there because of the warm weather, the palm trees, and the
beach. They are there because of the shopping opportunities, and they are there to have fun. For
many, having fun means visiting the city's many nightclubs, dance venues, and bars.
The result is an active and busy street life, especially in the evening. The main
north-south streets of South Beach have a steady flow of people, and Lincoln Road regularly has
people enjoying a night-time stroll, perhaps after dining at one of the street's restaurants. J People
are enjoying Lumas Park along the beach at all hours. and people walk up and down Ocean Drive
to see and be seen.
At certain locations in the city, and at certain times of the year, this vibrant and
exciting pedestrian flow becomes a pedestrian army, with crowds on the sidewalk rivaling those
of Times Square in New York or Leicester Square in London. On a holiday weekend, the
crowded blocks of Washington Avenue and Ocean Drive are nearly impassable, with hundreds of
people either walking or loitering. or trying to get into one of the nightclubs.
The nightlife, the flashy (and pricy) condominiums, the revitalized hotels, are all
part of the new Miami Beach. providing the city with assets that are the envy of urban leaders
I recall visiting Lincoln Road as a young boy, and being told by my father that at
one time. many people took \\'alks and shopped there. I was told this while staring at an empty
street with many boarded-up windows. Today. Lincoln Road. still with its old design and still a
pedestrian street enjoys the pedestrian traffic of days of old.
..,
--'-
elsewhere. While. not too long ago. the city was knO\\TI as an urbanized retirement village, today
it is knO\\TI for architecture, nightlife, and street-level excitement. And, it has largely managed to
become that while remaining a very nice place for families and retirees.
The large numbers of people coming to the Beach, and wanting to live here.
provide jobs, provide tax dollars that fund local services and benefits, and provide the quality of
life that prompts others to live (and stay) here.
It is these things that are at risk if the general public begins to perceive that Miami
Beach is out of control, that it is a place where order is not kept. and reasonable rules are not
followed. That perception will prompt increasing numbers of people to seek other pastures to
visit, lodge. shop, work. employ people. and live. Then. the fun places, the exciting crowds, the
entertainment options, the color, and the diversity that makes Miami Beach such an attraction will
be gone.
The city's success, after all. is not carved in stone. The popularity of Miami Beach
has fallen before. Also, unlike some earlier periods. the Beach' s competition is fierce. Miami
Beach must attract people who can go to other places in Florida, and beyond. While no other
locale can compete with its art deco attractions, surf, sand, and nightlife are hardly unique. Also,
it wants to retain its popularity with the fashion. film, and recording industries __ which will
presumably shy away if their crews feel unsafe. if the experience of working there is unpleasant,
if there are not good places to stay and dine, and if walking dO\\TI the street feels like an obstacle
course of harassment and intimidation.
Our object, and our challenge. is to improve the situation on the streets, without
risking the city's vibrancy and excitement. Miami Beach can shed some of its disorder problems,
and have so much left.
IV. Goals
A. What Success Can Look
Miami Beach. and South Beach in particular, is confronted with many non-violent
sources of urban disorder. The situation. especially on the southern section of Washington
A venue (roughly between Fifth and Sixteenth Streets). leaves visitors with the impression that the
area is out of control. that it is uncomfortable. that getting down the sidewalk is a hassle, and that
finding parking is a quixotic adventure. Venturing into the area could also mean stepping over
vagrants. dealing with teenage drunks. stepping in human waste, climbing through piles of litter,
and weaving one's way through scores of people hanging around. or waiting to get into one of
the many nightclubs in the area. The area is 'just not working right," in the words of Mayor
Kasdin.
-4-
The goal of this project, and this report. is to alleviate these problems, and thereby
increase the sense of order on Miami Beach streets.
Such a goal should provide no reason for concern by those who enjoy the beat,
energy, diversity, and life of the city.
We were not called to Miami Beach to help change the city into Disneyland, or
Tulsa. No one with whom we met expressed any such interest. or an interest in creating a
pristine, sterilized, or segregated environment. On the contrary, it was a unanimous view that the
fun, vitality, diversity, and entertainment opportunities of Miami Beach are a tremendous asset to
the city.
None of this is inconsistent with the goal of this project. Fun and vitality need not
mean public anarchy. Rules can be set and enforced which enable aU residents and visitors in
Miami Beach to enjoy themselves, and use its public spaces in a manner that is safe, fair to
others, and conducive to the environment the City 'w'ishes to have.
What does success look. ]ik.e? We believe that. as Miami Beach makes progress on
the issues discussed in this report, and follows our recommendations, people there should see:
· Less crime;
· An enjoyable and more comfortable experience for those coming to South Beach;
· Better pedestrian traffic flows:
· Fewer instances of harassment of pedestrians:
· Better year-round business for hotels. retail stores, restaurants, and other
businesses;
· Improvements in the appearance of the city's public spaces;
· Continued population gro\V1h:
· Continued commitment to the vitality of the city;
· Continued commitment to the diversity of the city.
B. Improvements that Benefit both Residents and Visitors
During our meeting with some Commissioners, we were told that residents want a
quality of life, while visitors. who invest money in the community, want vibrancy.
We see this as overstated. Most visitors want a reasonable quality of life in a
community as well. There is a reason that Lagos and Johannesburg do not get many tourists. In
-5-
such places, visitors cannot count on law enforcement and a sense of order. They too want
civility, cleanliness, and a sense that they are welcome, and safe. I
V. Start by Changing the Message
The goals of this endeavor are set forth above. Our way of getting there...is to
change the message the city provides to those who come there. Today, visitors quickly get the
impression that, not only can they have fun in Miami Beach, they can truly let it all hang out, and
be as wild as they want to be. The new message should be - come here and have fun, but you
must conduct yourself reasonably. By "'reasonably," we mean conduct that is conducive to a
healthy business and residential environment, and respectful of other visitors.
The new message should also be that this is a place where disorder is not tolerated,
and not a place to hang out on the street, get drunk in public, harass or annoy other visitors, clog
traffic, or violate the juvenile curfew ordinance.
For minors, the message that needs to be sent is stricter, and more direct. It is: late
at night, you need to be either at home, or under close adult supervision. The streets of Miami
Beach, late at night, are not for you.
This message, moreover, must be directed at more than visitors (whether from the
area or tourists). The message also must be applied to those living on the streets and alleys of the
city, who have for too long not only enjoyed the lethargic, pennissive attitude of the community,
but have used that attitude to enable their addictions and remain on the streets.
How is the new message to be communicated? Successfully getting out the new
message will mean a visible police presence on Washington Avenue and other areas of the city
that are drawing tourists and crowds. It will also mean enforcing the standards of conduct
adopted in the city (and county) ordinances. Finally, it should also include public statements by
the Mayor, the City Manager, City Commissioners, and police supervisors.3
Moreover, residents invest in the community as well, by buying and renting
property. by shopping, etc.
We envision aspects of the new message to be put on road signs on the
Causeway. We sa\\i an example of this in an anti-truancy warning on the last day of the school
year.
-6-
Ideally, the end result will be a new impression: that there is order on the streets of
Miamj Beach, there are rules, and none of this interferes with a good time for the visitors and
members of this vibrant, diverse community.
VI. Maintaining what the City has Chosen to Create
A. Paying the Band
If Miami Beach is in a troubling situation, and if that troubling situation is fueled
by the crowd drawn by some of the nightclubs, then it is not hard for even this casual visitor to
find the source of the problem - it is the City itself.
The city government set up the situation. and built the stage for a performance
consisting of excess noise, public intoxication, litter, obnoxious and rowdy behavior. etc.
No one forced the City to grant 36 nightclub business licenses on lower
Washington A venue. Whether moti vated by revenue wishes, or in the desire to create a certain
ambiance for the city, the issuance of so many licenses was a prescription for rowdiness and
other undesirable side-effects that currently permeates the area. If there were benefits to the City
in handing out all of these licenses, the price is now being paid.
In the abstract, there is nothing per se wrong with granting so many nightclub
licenses. The problem is that Miami Beach wanted to give this dance without paying the band. It
granted the licenses without providing adequate resources for the predictable effect of so many
night spots spread over so little space. Here, the band fees include adequate policing, adequate
code enforcement, and adequate enforcement of alcohol sales regulations.
B. Police Resources
Our observation is that the Miami Beach Police Department does not enforce
street order maintenance rules as much as they can.4 At the same time, the Department needs
more resources, in the form of more street-level officers to do the job called for by the number of
visitors, and the number of nightclubs, in the city.
4 There was a noticeable mixture in the picture v.e received of the attitude of the
police on street order maintenance issues. Many police officers understood the importance of
rule setting and enforcement, and the relationship between street order maintenance, urban
vitality, and violent crime. Others, however, saw enforcing proscriptions against "low level"
crime as not worth their effort.
-7-
We were told that there are 349 police officers in Miami Beach, and there are
currently 401 budgeted slots.
This is not enough, given: a) the part-time residential population; b) the popularity
of the city to tourists and visitors from the area: and c) the current extent of street order
maintenance problems in the city. These factors lead to a hefty need for police services,
particularly those services which are on the street, and the most labor-intensive.
We were told that the City plays host to 7.1 million visitors a year. This makes the
residential population, as a measure of the need for police services, largely irrelevant. Indeed,
tourists and visitors usually present a greater burden on police services than a residential
population, because they have fewer ties to the community (and hence often feel fewer
responsibilities), because being on vacation often leads to licentious conduct, and because of the
concentration of tourists and visitors in particular areas.
Police resources, like any other allocation of public resources, are a political
decision, left up to local decision-makers and the people who vote in the community. We would
not try to impose our ideas on how Miami Beach spends its tax money. Our observation is
simply that, without more resources for law enforcement, the City will have to choose between
continuing and growing disorder, or reducing the number of nightclubs and the crowds that come
to them. In our view, trying to have a nightlife on the scale that the number of licenses issued by
the city indicates, while retaining the current level of police resources, is overly optimistic, and
ignores the consequences to other business o'WTIers. residents, and tourists.
In sum, the City clearly wants its active nightlife and larger street crowds. The
question is whether it wants a modicum of order as well. That comes with a price, as standards
of conduct are difficult to maintain unless there is a real threat of enforcement. 5
C. Off Duty Police as Nightclub Security
The City benefits from the common practice of club ovmers to hire off-duty police
officers as security personnel. The practice increases the sense of order in the area, by providing
a visible police presence. It also subsidizes the salaries the City pays its police officers.
CLC wishes to emphasize that we are not suggesting, and would never suggest,
that this or any community needs a tax increase to provide the appropriate law enforcement
resources. The city's budgeting process, using existing tax revenue, is a series of choices and the
selection of priorities. The lack of priority for order and rule enforcement has been the choice to
date. This does not have to remain the case, even if more resources for law enforcement will
mean less resources devoted to other. current municipal priorities.
-8-
However, a temporary employee of a club is not a substitute for police whose job
it is to enforce the community's rules. More police, on the City's time and nickel, are needed to
demonstrate that the area is one where rules are enforced, and to enforce the rules when called
upon to do so. This is the City's obligation. The additional help from the club ovmer's pockets
is a good thing, but should not be a reason to avoid adequately staffing the police needs of the
area.6
D. Other Enforcement Resources
While the need for police services can be alleviated somewhat by increases in
Code Enforcement, and while this need may diminish as people become accustomed to higher
standards of public conduct. Miami Beach will need a lot of police for as long as it is an
extremely popular visitor destination.
In addition to an increase in the number of police on the street, the county can and
should help. Miami Beach provides the county with its principal playground, with many county
residents pouring across the Causeway, often at no economic benefit to Miami Beach. The
county therefore owes it its fair share of police resources.
Additionally, the training of Miami Beach police officers needs to be augmented
to assure that the officers on the street are familiar with city ordinances, and the community
priorities they represent. Police on the street are most effective when they are aware of the order
maintenance tools that are at their disposal.
E. Backing up the Police Officer
CLC requested to observe the county process of booking those arrested by the
Miami Beach Police Department. We were not invited to do so.
We heard, though, from both police officers and others, that the process is made
unnecessarily cumbersome by the county. We could not independently verify this serious
charge.
6 Since 'Writing this, we have learned that the Washington Avenue Task Force has
recommended assessing club owners. and using this money to post police officers outside the
clubs. We view the selection of sources of municipal revenue to beyond our purview, but agree
that it would be beneficial to have more general-duty police officers assigned to the area,
enforcing the public conduct rules and deterring crime. We see the Task Force recommendation
as consistent with our report.
-9-
Assuming that the county detention facility is as hostile as we were told it is to
Miami Beach arrests, particularly for violations of City ordinances, this needs to change. A
process whereby arrests are greeted v'.ith the notion that the county officials are being burdened,
the City should not have bothered, or the police have presumptively erred, is unfair to the City
and its taxpayers.
Miami Beach suffers from the lack of a municipal justice system, such as those in
Philadelphia, New York, or Las Vegas. That, though, is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Rather, the Beach is, for the foreseeable future, dependent upon the county to process criminals.
Therefore, the county cannot be allowed to pick and choose for itself which city ordinances are
worthy of arrests and sanctions.
Sanctions for violations of street order maintenance ordinances are needed in
order for public spaces to be kept orderly and inviting. This does not mean that arrests need be
frequent, or common. It does mean that sanctions must exist, and people must know it. The
availability of jail time as a sanction is what makes less intrusive sanctions, such as "move on"
orders from police offers, viable as well.
If the alleged county hostility to Miami Beach order maintenance arrests
continues, the City does not have to respond with a sigh and inaction. It can appeal. It can apply
political pressure. It can publicly identifY the judges that are too permissive.7 And, if need be, it
can sue.
All of this said, the fact that the police in Miami Beach need to process arrests in
the northern part of Dade County is not an excuse for not making arrests. The cumbersome
procedure is part of the political system of the state where they are employed, and therefore part
of a police officer's job.
F. Arrest Times
The state of Florida sets a six hour time limit for holding people at the city's police
station before they are booked at the county jail. This limit does place a burden on the police, but
it is a standard that they can and do meet. Furthermore, in many instances, the arrest alone
sufficiently deters further violations of street order maintenance measures.
An alternative available to the police is to take some violators directly to social
service providers, where they can seek help.
This was done with success by the dOv'l1tO\',l1 development organization in
Atlanta. Additional information about the judicial oversight program in Atlanta is contained in
the appenaices to this Report.
-10-
VII. The Nightclubs
A. Whining
There has been a good deal of whining from the city's club owners and managers.
The whining began in the press. and in \vhat City Hall officials told us they were hearing from the
clubs. The whining continued in our meetings with club owners and operators.
The whining is usually to the effect that the City is picking on them. It then
broadens to a complaint that the City is "biting the hand that feeds it," namely by making it more
difficult for the establishments that bring in tourists and tax dollars to do business.
We find the \vhining to be based on illegitimate wishes, unrealistic expectations,
and unfair demands.
To begin with. it is not picking on a business. and it is most certainly not unfair. to
insist that a business operate by reasonable rules applicable to all. The rules of doing business in
Miami Beach are not particularly burdensome. Indeed, they appear to be more permissive than
in most other communities.8 Furthermore. these rules were known when the nightclubs chose to
open and do business in Miami Beach.
Yet, we heard. consistently and repeatedly, how unfair it was that the City expects
the bar owners to operate by rules. We emphasize: we did not hear any accusation that the City
was wTongfully accusing club owners. Rather, the whine was that the City was enforcing the
rules it had already adopted, and that the club o\\ners knew about.
One complaint was that 'clubs' with restaurant licenses had to serve food. The
requirement is taken as a great inconvenience by businesses who never had any intention to do
so. However, a nightclub that elects to pursue a specific type of license in order to open its doors
should hardly be heard to complain that, low and behold. the license they chose to apply for has
requirements. This is analogous to a person bu)'ing a fertilizer plant, and then complaining about
the smell. What did they expect?
For example, the option of selling alcoholic beverages until 5 :00 in the morning is
not presented to bars in New York City. Washington. or San Francisco. Casinos in Las Vegas
cannot admit those under 21. Bars in California may not allow their patrons to smoke. Indeed,
the mere fact that there are three dozen nightclubs on the southern commercial stretch of
Washington A venue demonstrates that gening a business license to operate a nightclub on the
Beach is hardly an insurmountable task. and also shows that it is possible to operate such a
business profitably in the community.
-11-
The whining. regretfully. did not stop there. We believe that the club operators in
the city are far too quick to allege invidious discrimination (such as on the basis of sexual
orientation). V/e saw not the slightest evidence of such biases on the part of the police. city
officials, or in the community, and. moreover. find it to imagine that such discrimination would
be a problem in this community.
In the midst of the whining, club operators knowingly permit and tolerate many
forms of disorder. We were told by free-speaking club operators, that, yes, drugs are often used
on their premises. minors drink there, there is over-crowding, there is a lot of noise, and that the
clubs often have rowdy crowds loitering outside.
are enforced.
More adherence to the city's rules is in order, and less complaining that the rules
B. But What About the Clubs' Investment?
Our observation is that the club owners/operators are correct when they assert that
their establishments are an integral part of the attraction, environment, and economy of Miami
Beach. This admirable and useful role in the life of the city, however, does not come with a "get
out of jail free" card, or a license to violate local laws and regulations. Nor is it an implicit
permission to create havoc in the city.
We recognize that the clubs have a significant investment in their businesses, and
that this investment has benefitted the Beach's attraction to visitors and others. Nothing in this
report should be taken to the contrary. We believe, though, that the clubs' investment should be
a motivation to obey the rules, not a license to ignore them.
Other people also have investments that are worthy of respect _ residents, tourists,
property owners, hotel operators, restaurant owners, and employees working in the area. All of
these people need a reasonable level of rules and civility to protect their investment. Following
the rules allows the community and individuals to prosper.
C. Consistency
Another compliant from clubs is that the City is enforcing the lavvs and regulations
on the books in an inconsistent manner.
Given the limited time and scope of our reviev.,.. \Ve cannot verifY or reject this
accusation. Our take is that inconsistently, if it does exist. is a valid ground for complaint.
-]2-
Our definition of inconsistency. however. probably differs from that of the club
owners/managers. To us. inconsistency means the City knows about a problem at two clubs, but
seeks to sanction only one of them. The fact that Club A is investigated (or cited) for a rule
violation, while Club B violates the rule without the City's attention. is not necessarily a problem.
Public resources are limited, and enforcement resources need to be allocated.
With limited enforcement personneL it is reasonable for the City not to conduct investigations at
each and every establishment. Similarly, it is reasonable for the City to focus its enforcement
resources where it has received more complaints, where the police report more problems, or
where it observes indicia of rule violations.
For these reasons. "selective enforcement" is a bogus legal defense, and should
not prevail in court or in the court of public opinion.9
D. Age Restrictions
Entry to nightclubs in Miami Beach should be limited to those 21 years of age and
older. Such a regulation is hardly unique. Many nightclubs, discos, country-western dancing
establishments, and bars throughout the country live with it every day.IO
The setting of such a new, uniform age minimum for nightclub entry would
represent the community's conclusion that these places are not appropriate for minors. Such an
age restriction has at least three beneficial purposes. First, it assures that alcohol will not be
served to minors in these establishments. Second, it helps reduce motivations to violate the
county juvenile curfew ordinance. Third. it reduces the lure into the city by minors who, by their
age alone, can be expected to be less willing to adhere to community standards.
Many clubs already prohibit entry to minors. They do so because they want
patrons with which their target market feels comfortable. and want to avoid problems that are
increased when minors are permitted. We were told frequently that many more clubs would like
the benefits of prohibiting minors, but fear losing out to competitors who allow them. A city-
wide prohibition would avoid competitive bottom-feeding of this
9 Selective enforcement based on irrelevant criteria. such as race, religion. national
origin, sex, or sexual orientation present problems. We saw no evidence of any such conduct or
the motivation on the part of the City.
10 State law already prohibits anyone under 18 from entering establishments licensed
as "dance 'halls."
-13-
We understand that the City is uncertain as to whether it has the legal authority,
under state law, to enact such a restriction. Although Florida imposes many restrictions on the
municipal regulation of establishments serving alcoholic beverages. a prohibition of entry to
anyone under 21 is entirely consistent with state policy and law. which forbids serving alcohol to
anyone under 21. Because a new city ordinance would help enforce existing state law, and
provide further assurance that state policy is followed, a preemption problem could be avoided.
If. despite this. the City determines that it lacks the authority to adopt such an
ordinance now, it can request specific authorization from the State Legislature to do so. Such a
request may not generate opposition from the "liquor lobby." as. in theory. the proposed change
should not affect alcohol sales, because the affected population is already prohibited from
purchasing alcohol. Additionally. the City can always request voluntary compliance with its
stated policy of "no one under 21 admined." The City could accompany this request for
voluntary compliance with publicizing the names of the establishments that do not comply.
These establishments could also be carefully watched for code or law violations.
E. Noise
Nightclubs are noisy. Licensing one means tolerating a certain amount of noise in
the area, just as entering one means tolerating a higher level of noise than one would get at other
places.
That said. a license to operate a nightclub is not a license to generate an unlimited
amount of noise. Patrons of a particular nightclub might enjoy ear-numbing volumes, but such
volumes should not be permined if they prevent other property owners from operating a
business, or enjoying their residence.
Maximum noise levels are set by the Dade County noise ordinance. This
ordinance is preferred by the City over the municipal noise ordinance because it provides for a
criminal sanction. The county ordinance is a modem one, forgoing out-dated decibel limitations
that required the police (and Code Enforcement) to carr)' complicated and expensive sound-
measuring devices, while often sening a rigid standard that was supposed to apply to all places
and all situations in the city.
The Dade County ordinance. on the other hand, prohibits unreasonable noise
under the circumstances. Such an ordinance. also adopted as state-wide statutes in Wisconsin
and Maryland, recognizes that what noise is unreasonable varies with the location. time. and
-14-
circumstances. Noise that is permissible during a parade, or a New Year's celebration, for
example, is unreasonable at a funeral, or in a quiet residential neighborhood. I I
Although the county ordinance does have its advantages. a parallel civil sanction is
still needed, and could come from a new city noise ordinance containing the same excessive
noise standard as the county measure. This would allow both criminal and civil sanctions against
the generators of unreasonable noise.12
The civil sanction should be clear. Three violations are plenty. and should cost the
generator of the excessive noise the opportunity to do business as a nightclub in Miami Beach. It
is perhaps a shame that it should take the threat of shutting a business dO'W11 to get it to operate in
a way that is respectful of its neighbors. But if that is what it takes, the City should be prepared
to pursue such a sanction, to protect the reasonable expectations and sensibilities of nearby
residents.
F. Increasing Penalties for Follow-On Infractions
We suggest providing for augmented penalties against business owners in the city
after three demonstrated violations of a rule or law. Doing so declares that repetitive violations
demonstrate incorrigibility. We believe that a nightclub, or other business, with three rule or law
violations (say, within three years) has ShO'W11 that it is a menace to the community, and should
be shut down.
We do not believe that augmented penalties for follow-on infractions should be
limited to violations of noise limitations. The City can. and should, select the standards of
business conduct, violations of which are particularly harmful to the residential (or commercial)
vitality of the host neighborhood. Three violations of these (in any combination) within the
defined period should trigger closure. 13
II Flexible noise standards have withstood constitutional attack, including in the
highest courts of Maryland and South Carolina, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Additional information on flexible noise standards is contained in the appendices to this Report.
12 The City should also pay attention to the legitimate needs and wishes of residents
when they consider an application to open a nightclub in a location where predictable noise will
be able to be heard. and annoy, nearby residents.
13 Some rules whose violation may be subject to augmented penalties with
successive violations include noise restrictions. occupancy restrictions, selling alcohol to minors,
selling alcohol after hours. illegal hiring practices, and failure to pay taxes.
-15-
Such increased penalties are hardly draconian. They simply require that
businesses accept and follow rules set by the community. They also provide clear guidance of
the sanction, and solid protection for the host community.
G. Closing Times
We believe that the 5:00 a.m. nightclub and bar closing time is too restrictive, and
is not helpful to the street order maintenance situation in the city.14 Although permissive by
national standards, it leads to a once-a-night. nearly all at once, dumping of club patrons onto the
streets. It is preferable to have people leave clubs throughout the night. when they please. This
would improve pedestrian traffic, and better enable the police to enforce the public conduct rules.
Putting to bed the 5:00 uniform closing time also allows people to have a place to
be, and relax, while the effects of alcohol wear off. It also provides a place. other than a street or
alley, to gO to the bathroom. 15
H. Occupancy Levels
If there is one issue where whining from club operators should generate the least
sympathy, it is with regard to occupancy levels. These levels are set to ensure fire safety, and
some occupancy maximum may be necessary to ensure that the club is run properly. There is no
reason for these levels to be exceeded, and doing so may come close to deliberately putting
people's safety at risk for a handful of extra cover charge dollars. 16
The clubs should ensure that their doors are shut to new entrants when their
occupancy levels are reached. and the City should sanction clubs that fail to do so. After three
14 The 5:00 a.m. deadline for alcohol service is a product of state law. We do not
propose seeking any changes to this law.
15 Subsequent to submitting our draft report. we learned that the Washington
A venue Task Force recommended that clubs be allowed to remain open for an additional hour
after alcohol beverage service ceases. This reform would probably help somewhat. but would
still leave the city with a uniform closing time, and thus the real possibility of overflowing streets,
just one hour later. We believe that the closing time for the clubs. as with the operating hours of
other businesses. should be left up to the market.
16 Perhaps it can be argued that people voluntarily subject themselves to such risks.
That seems rarely true here. where people may be assuming compliance with the Fire Code. and
where many club patrons cannot discern occupancy levels until they pay a cover charge and
enter an establishment.
-16-
such sanctions, the club should be considered to have botched their opportunity and should be
shut dov.rn.
To ensure that these standards are adhered to. the City should expand its avenues
of enforcement. Currently. only fire inspectors enforce occupancy limits. As with the
enforcement of other rules. there is insufficient personnel to provide an expectation of a sanction,
resulting in the rules being ignored. It would be preferable if Code Enforcement, the Police
Department, and the Fire Department could all enforce the occupancy standards.
I. Spreading Enforcement Authority
It is not just with occupancy levels that rule enforcement in Miami Beach may be
allotted too narrowly. Both the police and civil Code Enforcement personnel should be able to
write tickets for violations of business operation rules. There should never be a situation where a
police officer sees a violation, and has to wait for a Code Enforcement staff member to arrive to
write a ticket.
Currently, there is considerable confusion as to the police's authority to write
tickets for code violations. We understand that there is such authority, but many police officers
are unaware of this, and believe that such authority rests solely with Code Enforcement.
J. Fliers and Leafleting
Miami Beach is rivaled by only San Francisco in its proliferation of fliers
highlighting club events. These fliers, often colorful and often expensive to print, are distributed
by placing them inside of store doors, by handling them to passers-by, by handling them out near
schools. and by other methods.
Miami Beach currently prohibits leafleting cars, but leafleting people is
permissible, anyv.,'here. We recommend adopting a new ordinance prohibiting leafleting people
on the crowded streets of Collins A venue, Washington A venue, and Ocean Drive, at least during
prime evening hours.17
17 We suspect that some people in the City would like to see an even broader
prohibition, reaching South Beach side streets as well. CLC sees the advantage of doing so. but
urges caution. The more alternative avenues of communication that the City can site. the better
chance a limited prohibition can withstand a First Amendment challenge in the courts. We
recommend starting with a prohibition on leafleting on the major streets. and then monitoring the
(continued... )
-] 7-
Leafleting is a constitutionally protected fonn of free speech. However, there is
no constitutional right to leaflet an)where and anytime one pleases. Clark County, Nevada has
an ordinance prohibiting leaflets on the sidewalks along Las Vegas Boulevard (the famous
"Strip''). This prohibition protects pedestrian flow and prevents liner on some of the most busy
sidewalks in the country, as well as providing the pedestrians in this tourism-sensitive area with
protections against unwanted harassment. Visitors to Miami Beach warrant the same protection.
Given the wide opportunities for advertising clubs, a prohibition on leafleting on the busy streets
at the busiest hours would be both reasonable and helpful.
K. Cleaning Up
Not everything having to do with public sidewalks need be the responsibility of
the City (and therefore the taxpayers). Those businesses which cause a disproportional increase
in the burden of services should have a concomitant responsibility. One way to make the city
cleaner, and to apportion the burden of doing so fairly, is to make commercial property owners
responsible for cleaning up the portion of the public sidewalk adjacent to their establishments.
This burden should reach all commercial property O\\TIers, and not just the
nightclubs. Additionally, the City should make clear that cleaning up the adjacent sidewalks does
not mean simply sweeping refuge into the street.
This responsibility is already a part of the City Code. With a handful of fines, the
message will be received, resulting in greater efforts to ensure that patrons do not liner, and/or
more clean-up work.
L. Queuing Limitations
Currently. the clubs benefit from having patrons wait outside until they are let in.
From what we can tell, this provides two benefits: a) it allows new customers to be waiting and
readily available when there is a spot for them; and b) gives the club the appearance of being an
"in" spot.
The problem is that the lines and crowds waiting to get into clubs block sidewalks,
interfere with pedestrian flow, become breeding crowds for gang disputes and other fights, and
inhibit law enforcement. In short, the lines place a burden on the community. while the benefits
rest entirely with the adjacent clubs.
17( ...continued)
situation. If such a review leads to the detennination that leafleting on other streets is causing
problems,'lhen these streets can then be added to the scope of the prohibi tion.
- 18-
That said, we recognize that prohibiting queuing outside the clubs would be
perceived as a drastic new regulation. We therefore recommend that such a change be held in
abeyance at this time, to be imposed only if further steps are deemed needed after the other
recommendations in this report are implemented.
M. Concentration Restrictions
Miami Beach already has a proposal on the table to deal with club-related order
maintenance problems. The proposal is supported by the police, and by most club owners. This
recommendation is to limit the concentration of clubs, such as by prohibiting more than two on
any city block. 18
CLC has no opinion on this suggestion. We are, though, a bit skeptical that it
would, by itself, offer the city much relief. We do believe that its implementation on Ocean Drive
would negatively affect the environment that appears to be anracting people to that street.
Many other cities regard nightlife districts as a good things. Such districts have
contributed to residential and commercial growth, such as in the South of Market Area of San
Francisco, Capital Hill in Seanle, North Halstead in Chicago, and Deep Ellum in Dallas.
Additionally, a city that has not shown a capacity to adequately enforce rules of
public conduct when clubs are close together very well may have more difficulty doing so when
they are father apart.
Finally, the fact that de-concentration is an issue in Miami Beach is a reminder that
the City chose to issue so many licenses. A de-concentration ordinance would be a frank
admission of a mistake. .
CLC believes that, whatever advantages de-concentration may have, they could be
achieved by more vigorous enforcement of rules, both inside the clubs and on the street. With
18 We understand the recommendation to include "grandfathering" existing
establishments, by allowing them to stay. either indefinitely or until their investment-backed
expectation can be recouped.
No one should be surprised at the support of the club O\\l1ers. A de-concentration
ordinance would protect the market share of the existing clubs. and create a high barrier to market
entry.
-19-
expanded enforcement and a resulting improvement in the street environment. the City can
review new club applications on their own merits.19
N. Licensing Promoters
Another proposal introduced to the City Commission is one that would regulate,
license, and require bonds for promoters that occasionally operate dances and parties at the clubs.
It has been the City's experience that promoters, who do not 0\\11 the clubs or premises where
they put on their events. attract a rougher. and more unruly, crowd. perhaps because they have
no long-term interest in the community.2u
CLC believes that licensing and regulating the promoters can help the city achieve
its goals, as long as it is not used as a substitute for adequately enforcing rules that apply to all
clubs, or for adequately enforcing standards of public conduct.
VIII. On the Street
A. Juvenile Curfew Ordinance
It is county policy that minors, at night, should be either under adult supervision
or at home. Such a local policy is hardly unique - juvenile curfews exist in hundreds of cities
large and small, and have been deemed effective in reducing crime by and against juveniles, and
in promoting parental responsibility.
It was the consistent view of the police officers with whom we spoke that
enforcement of the juvenile curfev,.' ordinance is a useful tool. However, the standard imposed by
the ordinance is often a paper tiger in Miami Beach. According to the police officers with whom
we spoke (and others), the curfew ordinance is rarely enforced, and juveniles can, for the most
part, feel comfortable on the late-night streets of the Beach. This is consistent with our own
observations.
19 An alternative to a de-concentration ordinance is a one year moratorium on new
nightclub licenses. to give the city time to refocus resources to deal with its street order
maintenance problems.
20 The proposed ordinance also makes it clear that the property owner that leases
hisiber premises to a promoter remains liable for damages and problems caused by the promoter.
-20-
Part of this is the broader problem of law enforcement resources. But. both before
and after this larger issue is addressed, the police can stop transforming themselves into a
chauffeur service by driving curfew violators home. Violating a curfew ordinance should not be
rewarded with a free ride home. Moreover, the current practice encourages parents to not come
and get their kids. After aIL why bother to do so when the police will do it for you?
It is the parent's or guardian's responsibility to pick up curfew violators and bring
them home. In the case of parents who refuse to do so, the matter should be turned over to the
child protective services, as with other instances of parental neglect.
Curfew enforcement. particularly in combination with a raised age minimum at
the nightclubs, can take the city far in re-establishing order on South Beach Streets. It would also
provide a more adult environment, which, just about always, means a more behaved one.
Finally, in our view, the Dade County ordinance is too permissive. The
overwhelming majority of juvenile curfew ordinances set the curfew age at 17 and below. The
City should encourage the county to also adopt this standard. or seek to establish its O'WTI curfew
ordinance.:! I
B. Public Intoxication
For a city with such a major tourism influx, with so much of its economy and
vitality dependent upon visitors having a pleasant experience when they are on the streets. Miami
Beach is stunningly tolerant of public drinking and public intoxication. Visitors, night club
patrons, and the homeless can usually be confident that they can be intoxicated, and act that way,
with impunity.
That tolerance is playing with fire. Intoxicated people are less likely to conform to
basic standards of conduct. They therefore present a risk to the safety and well-being of others.
:!1 It is possible that any attempt to do so will be met with the accusation that the city
is not being culturally sensitive. This is hogwash, as diverse communities. of all ethnic make-
ups, have seen fit to adopt curfews and successfully enforce them. Parental responsibility for
adequate control over children is not limited to any segment of the population.
Juvenile curfews have been upheld by two federal appeals courts. A third appeals
court struck down San Diego's curfew ordinance. That court explicitly did so because the
ordinance lacked exceptions commonly found in more modern curfew measures.
-21-
Much of the impunity is probably due to the over-riding problem of insufficient
law enforcement resources. Yet. each time a police officer passes an obvious drunk without
saying or doing an)1hing. the message of rulelessness is reinforced.
We were unable to establish whether public intoxication is explicitly prohibited by
county or city ordinance. If not. it is easy enough to adopt the legislation to do so. Once that is
accomplished, it is a matter of enforcement. The current City Code does reach possessing an
open container of alcohol, and consuming alcohol in public. This is useful, if enforced. but it is
better to empower the police to intervene with an intoxication problem, regardless of whether the
officer sees the public consumption, and regardless of whether there is an open container at the
scene.
That enforcement need not only include arrests. In some cities. a drunk tank has
been established. Other communities choose to take drunk people home. Taking people to
homeless shelters, when appropriate. and when shelter space is available, is another option.
However, arrests are a fair sanction. and could potentially serve as a needed source of
intervention for those with serious alcohol problems.
C. Illegal Alcohol Sales
Street drunks have to get their booze from somewhere. In Miami Beach, that
"somewhere" is usually small grocery stores licensed to sell alcohol.
That license is abused, and state law are violated, ",'hen such sales are made: a) to
minors; b) to intoxicated persons: or c) after permitted hours. At the same time, the profit to be
made from illegal sales is significant. To prevent it. the sanction must be significant as well.
Indifference, or lack of resources to police these stores, means that alcohol will continue to flow
to those who will abuse it, or not allowed to consume it.
Although the laws and regulations governing alcohol sales are made at the state
level, we understand that the police are not helpless in the face of violations. Rather, the local
police have arrest and citation authority. This authority can be augmented by seeking permission
from the state to close down operators who are cited three times, and getting the state to
withdrawal alcohol sales licenses after repeated violations.
We also recommend that either the City, or private groups, conduct sting
operations to identifY those businesses which sell liquor to minors, or during impermissible
hours. In some communities, these experiments have been successfully run by private groups,
with the information turned over to the police. Although it may be inappropriate to issue tickets
based on information collected by private groups, the police could focus its investigatory
resources on those stores identified as problems by these groups.
-22-
D. Use of the Sidewalks
Seattle has an ordinance. copied in part in Philadelphia. which we believe would
be helpful in Miami Beach (or at least certain parts of the Beach). The Seattle ordinance
prohibits lying or sitting on commercial sidev.'alks during business hours.""
Miami Beach has many people who choose to use the sidewalks as their sitting
room or bedroom, not only making pedestrian flow more difficult. but creating a formidable
obstacle for the elderly. the blind, and those confined to a wheelchair.
The problem also affects the appearance of the area, and the willingness of people
to venture into the city. thereby having a direct impact on an area' s safety, quality of life, and
commercial vitality. People choose to go elsewhere to meet. shop, and dine in order2 to avoid
the obstacle-course like gauntlets. and when they fear that an unsafe environment has been
created by sidewalk sitters. These problems are alleviated when a city insists that, as with the
common English meaning, sidewalks are for walking."3
An example of a sidewalk use ordinance. based upon the measure adopted in
Seattle, is included in the appendices to this Report.
E. Automobile Cruising
Miami Beach already has an automobile cruising ordinance."4 However. it is
limited to Ocean Drive. and, even there, seems to be rarely enforced.
" The constitutionality of the Seattle ordinance was challenged by a group of
plaintiffs, including homeless people and a street musician, who sometimes sit on sidewalks.
This group brought suit in federal court, challenging the constitutionality of the Sidewalk
Ordinance. The constitutional challenge was rejected, both by a federal trial court and by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The ordinance was subsequently also upheld in state courts.
"3 Sidewalk use measures have the additional benefit of encouraging people on the
street to seek help because the option of staying on the street all day is significantly diminished.
:4 Even automobile cruising ordinances have been the subject of constitutional
challenges in the federal courts. Not surprisingly, reviewing courts have found that they do not
violate whate\er intrastate "right to travel"' motorists have. We believe that the right to travel
should not even be relevant. The purpose of cruising, by definition. is not to get anywhere, it is
to see and be seen.
-23-
Automobile cruising was reported as a problem on the Fifth to Sixteenth Street
stretch of Washington A venue as well. However, until police resources are augmented,
modifying the ordinance to include new areas would only be an expression of the preferences of
the City Commission. This could change people's conduct. but the lack of enforcement is likely
to be known by those inclined to cruise in their cars. Should the City choose to make this
change, "no-cruising" signs should be put up, to notify motorists of the new prohibition.
Once sufficient law enforcement resources are available, the City can use other
ordinances on the books, in addition to the prohibition against automobile cruising, to deter and
diminish youths clogging traffic lanes. The other ordinances include those on obstructed
windows, tinted windows, and the state limitation on night driving by 16 and 17 year olds.
F. Street Vending
The City already has a street vending ordinance, limiting, somewhat where such
vending can occur, and insisting that vendors have a city-issued license. Although the ordinance
discusses only non-profit vendors, our observation is that the measure has improved the
pedestrian flow on busy South Beach streets.
We would go further. We believe that such vending is inappropriate in all of
South Beach. The crowded streets, the beauty of the beach front area, and the environment
created by the art deco architecture all lead in the direction of a prohibition.25
G. Cleanliness and Aesthetics
The southern section of Washington A venue has a good deal of litter on it. The
dirty, unkempt appearance contrasts sharply with the clean impression we got during our walks
along Lincoln Road.
With the City asking much of the club ovmers, and with these demands hopefully
increasing as a result of this report, it should demonstrate that it is willing to meet the business
25 No city is under an obligation. constitutional or otherwise, to provide rent-free
retail space. and prohibitions on sales of even allegedly "expressive merchandise" (such as
message-bearing t-shirts) in busy tourist areas have been upheld in Las Vegas, Honolulu, and
with the National Park Service areas in Washington, D.C. The constitutional arguments,
moreover. are inapplicable to sellers of roses and cigars, which seem to be the main street
vending activity in Miami Beach. The constitutional arguments are also inapplicable to people
who otTer to take pictures of tourists for a fee.
-24-
owners halfway. Emptying the contents of the public trash receptacles, as often as necessary to
prevent them from overflowing, should not be too much to ask. Failure to do so indicates that
the City has deemed the appearance of Washington A venue, and other streets, as not important,
or far less important than the projects that absorb the city's tax dollars.
Similarly, Washington A venue looks stark. In a city known in part for its flora and
color, there was little by way of trees or greenery on this important street.
We understand that this may be changing, and that, since our visit, the City has
planted new palm trees (in addition to providing more trash cans). Such changes should
themselves deter litter, and improve the perception of safety on the street.
Additionally, we heard frequent complaints from store and property owners about
the physical condition of the sidewalks. An intact sidewalk is another part of the City's
contribution to a safe and orderly environment. As with many issues, failure to act indicates that
the City wants the easy road: the revenue and reputation of a vibrant nightlife, but without the
financial consequences.
H. Vacant Property
We heard many complaints during our visits to Miami Beach about property
owners allowing their property to remain vacant. Some reportedly do so out of unrealistic
expectations about the rent their property can yield. We believe that leaving a property vacant is
an owner's prerogative, however unfortunate that may be for the appearance and property values
of others.
1. Parking
Consultants, particularly those like CLC who are not in the business of regularly
providing consulting services, should be willing to admit where its knowledge, experience, and
research do not reach. Regretfully, we can offer no suggestions for alleviating parking problems
on the Beach. ~6
We can see that the shortage of parking spots is a problem in South Beach. as can
anyone who has tried to park after, say, seven o'clock in the evening.
~6 The International Downtown Association can probably offer experienced
guidance on this issue.
-25-
This is in part due to deliberate actions by the City, which has issued many
restaurant, club, and hotel licenses, without requiring or providing parking. The result is
predictable. The result is augmented by the decision to prohibit evening parking adjacent to
houses and apartment buildings.27
Parking is not a civic or legal obligation. But, these decisions have created a
massive parking problem, which makes it difficult to run a business in Miami Beach, particularly
for small retail stores.
Restaurants, clubs, and hotels have little incentive to build parking garages or lots.
Although their patrons need them, it is preferable, when possible, to profit from these patrons,
and turn the parking responsibility over to someone else. This has been the common practice in
South Beach, with businesses adopting the attitude of "play here - park somewhere else."
One other thing about parking.....we have little sympathy for complaints about
parking enforcement. If the rules are too strict on parking, then specific proposals should be
offered to change them. However, people know how to feed parking meters, and they
understand that tickets are a possible result of letting a meter expire, or parking in an illegal space.
The real question is the availability of an adequate number of spaces, not whether tickets are
issued for expired meters.28
IX. Addressing Homelessness in Miami Beach
A. Life on the Streets
Being homeless is never easy - as demonstrated in numerous studies that show
higher rates of illnesses and violence amongst those living on the street, as well as the daily
struggle to get by. However, if one is going to be homeless, Miami Beach is a pretty good place
to be. Although there are no institutional sources of free food on the Beach, life is easier on the
streets here than in most places. The pleasant weather is one reason, but it is also because it is
easier to blend in, as many people on the streets dress lightly, or haggardly. On the Beach,
27 Although Miami Beach is not alone in doing this, not every community with
tourists and nightlife does so. Washington, D.C., for example, only protects residential parking
during business hours. At night parking is a free for all.
28 This Section should not be taken to indicate that the City has ignored the parking
problem. The City participates in the funding of the "Electro Wave", a free shuttle service that
runs fro~north of Lincoln Road dO~l1 Washington A venue.
-26-
looking grubby can just as easily mean following the latest fashion trend as not having access to a
shower and a razor.
On top of all of this, this has been a city where the community, and the police,
have asked very little of its street population, allowing them to stay on the street in peace. The
City has chosen this path. while hoping that the homeless population will not grow, or become
too visible to tourists and visitors.
B. A Head Start in Dealing with Homelessness: The Area's Assets
Miami Beach is in an excellent position to move its homeless off the streets and to
sources of help. The City's position is good because of the talented, well-funded social service
providers in the area.
One of the main features of this community's approach to homelessness in Miami
Beach is a jobs program run by Jewish Vocational Services, a local charity. The program is
admirable, and is doing good things with people who have made the decision to try to get off the
streets and resume a life of independence, productivity, and responsibility.
The program, though, has little to do with the people living every day on the
beaches, under the boardwalk, or in the alleys of the city. This segment of the homeless
population, constituting the overwhelming percentage of the people on the street in Miami Beach,
has little or no interest in ajob, or ajobs program. These people's interests seem to be twofold:
being able to stay on the street, and feeding their addiction. The addiction is usually alcohol, but
is occasionally drugs as well.
The productive and praiseworthy jobs program, though, is not the only asset the
community has in addressing homelessness. Dade County has some of the most comprehensive,
realistic, and accessible homeless facilities in the country. These facilities include the Salvation
Army shelter and the Homeless Access Center.
C. Voluntary Homelessness
We strongly suspect that no one need be on the streets of Miami Beach. We saw
no evidence of any involuntary homelessness in the city.
Rather, it is overwhelming likely that any person on the streets has at least one of
two options: a) go back home, to a friend, or a relative (with the likely cost of having to forgo
drinking. or face colder weather); or b) get help in their adopted community. That help is
-27-
available. Indeed, it is not only available. it is some of the best help of its kind we have come
across.
Because no one need be on the streets of Miami Beach, there seems little reason to
build a shelter there. Not every municipality needs one. Miami Beach is fortunate _ its
neighboring city of Miami, prodded by homeless advocates, civic leaders, and litigation, has built
shelters which cover the county's needs.
But - we heard frequently - most homeless people in Miami Beach will not go
across the Causeway to a Miami shelter.
Tough. Many people needing and seeking help for the conditions that produce
homelessness would feel blessed by the opportunities and facilities available in Dade County.
The effort to get across the Causeway is a poor excuse for failure to get help, or to insist that the
community provide public property as a place to sleep, eat, go to the bathroom, or spend one's
day.
No one can be forced to access help. But, Miami Beach should be doing what it
can to encourage people to do so, and stop making it easy for people to remain on the street, and
thereby enable their addictions. This means limiting the options of where people can live on the
street, limiting opportunities for panhandling, and vigorously enforcing minimum standards of
public conduct. Doing so will not "cure homelessness." It will, however, reduce the number of
people on the street, and encourage many to seek help.29 It will also improve the vitality and
attraction of the area.
D. H.A.C.
The Homeless Access Center ("H.A.C."), run by a non-profit organization using
donated and tax funds, is stunningly impressive in the services it offers those who want to get off
the street, its pleasant (recovery-encouraging) appearance, and its concern for its host
neighborhood. In our many years of working on homeless-related issues, we have never seen a
facility that appeared to be so well run. offered a wide variety of practical services, was realistic
about the nature and attributes of homelessness. and committed to recovery (rather than
warehousing, or using the homeless as political props).
29 Not all. Sadly, there is a segment of the homeless population that \vill not seek
help, and want nothing else but their next drink, or fix. Some of them will move to a city where
they can stay on the streets and drink in peace. Although there are fewer and fewer urban centers
that provide such opportunities, there are still some, such as San Francisco. New Orleans. Detroit,
and Berk~ley.
-28-
The facility, however, is currently limited to residents of Miami.30 This struck us
as unfair to the residents of Miami Beach, who pay the county tax which helps fund the facility.
We were told, however, that this limitation was a temporary accommodation in the face of
neighborhood complaints.31 Furthermore, a second H.A.C. will soon be opened in South Dade,
which will not have this limitation.
E. Outreach
Two dedicated individuals constitute the homeless outreach staff in Miami Beach.
The number seems about right. The two individuals are armed with ample patience, compassion,
realism, and skill in their work to gain the trust of the street population, and encourage them to
access the help that is available in the community.
In far more instances than not, the work of the outreach workers is for naught.
Sadly, most of the people on the street will listen to someone explain about the available sources
of help, but then will make an excuse as to why they cannot seek out the help, say no, or say yes
and then not seek the help. Simply put, they want to remain on the street where they can drink,
and where they will not be confronted with expectations and limitations on their conduct. For
this, they will sacrifice the easy availability of wann meals, a dry and safe place to sleep, and the
excellent social services that are available to them.
F. Use of the Parks
The parks of Miami Beach are established and funded by the taxpayers for a
specific purpose, mainly to provide a place for relaxation, recreation, and reflection. These
purposes are inimical to their use as an individual's bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen. Yet, some
parks in the city appear to have been abandoned tv these latter purposes. This wastes taxpayer
money, and denies the community valuable green spaces.
The impact of a loss of a park is most keenly felt by the poor and middle class
members of the community. The affluent can be presumed to have access to reliable and
30 How the city of residence of a homeless person can be determined with such
certainty was not made clear.
31 If so, the neighborhood was off-base. Social service providers are not good or
bad neighbors on the basis of the geographical region of their service population, but on whether
they insist on orderly behavior, and pay attention to what happens outside of their doors in the
host neighborhood.
-29-
comfortable green spaces. such as country clubs. In most urban areas, it is the rest of the
community that uses and benefits from public parks.
The community deserves better. It is entitled to the green spaces that its tax
dollars pay for. Its kids deserve a place to play, and parents deserve a place where they can send
their kids to play with confidence and security.
To provide such a key benefit, urban parks must look and be safe, as well as look
and be comfortable. Park benches must be clean, and available for a person to sit down, to read a
book, watch the goings-by, or rest - but not taken over as it were a bed. Pathways must be
clean, and green spaces must be unencumbered by broken bottles, other litter, used condoms,
human waste. or the accouterments of camping.
To regain the use of these parks, and to prevent their colonization, the existing
park rules need to be enforced more vigorously32. Enforcement of such rules when it is homeless
people who want to break them takes tenacity. Many times, moving people on means they will
soon be back. to try to move back in. This. however, is not an endless cycle. Eventually, our
experience shows, the community's rules prevail, and street addicts decide to avoid confrontation
and move out of the parks.
We were told, though, that, in Miami Beach, there are too many parks to
adequately police. This, then, is another example of the City creating a problem for itself. Parks
should only be open to the extent the community can police them, protect those who go there,
and keep these spaces for their intended purposes. Parks where the City cannot enforce rules are
parks that should be closed, or privatized.
Like sidewalk rules, arrests are not the only option to enforce park rules. "Move
on" orders, and taking people to homeless service providers, are often better options.
G. Begging
Writing about, and for, a city with many street order maintenance problems, it is
remarkable how modest the city's panhandling problem is. Walking down the busier streets in
South Beach. one is confronted by someone asking them for money only on a handful of
occasions. Such requests are far more common in other tourist areas, such as Philadelphia,
Washington, Toronto - or the begging capital of the western world, San Francisco.
3: This includes enforcing park closing times. We also suggest deleting the
exemption in the park closing ordinance for passing through the park at night.
-30-
Although the city's begging problem is not large, it should be addressed now,
both to prevent it from growing, and to avoid problems that may arise due to the city" s
antiquated panhandling control ordinance.
Miami Beach's begging ordinance is of an older type, aimed at vagrancy.
Currently, it is, in theory, illegal in Miami Beach to go "about begging" or to stand or loiter in the
city to seek money.
CLC believes that the best way for a city to regulate begging is not to prohibit it,
which is a lure for constitutional litigation and offensive to many's people's notions of charity,
but to regulate where and how it occurs. Specifically, we recommend that Miami Beach prohibit
panhandling when it is conducted in an aggressive manner and where it is particularly intrusive.
This more tailored approach allows people to seek alms from their fellow citizens,
while prohibiting the accosts and implied threats that begging brings when it is conducted in
certain places. such as on public transportation and near A TM machines.33
Our model ordinance (included in the Appendices) does not prohibit all
panhandling. Rather, it establishes reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the
conduct of this activity in order to increase public safety, minimize the harms caused to
individuals and the community at large, and facilitate the use of public spaces for their intended
purposes. We recommend that it be adopted by the City Commission, and that the current
panhandling ordinance be repealed.34
H. Dumpsters and Trash Cans
The City should be insisting, by ordinance if necessary. that property owners
secure their dumpsters, to prevent people from emptying them or searching through them. Such
33 Although some courts have deemed panhandling to have some constitutional
protection as "speech," communities have substantial leeway in devising regulations on how and
where panhandling may occur. In recent years, dozens of communities have taken steps to
address this problem including: New York. Phoenix, Washington. D.C.. Baltimore, Cincinnati.
Atlanta. Seattle. Milwaukee, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Long Beach. Philadelphia, Sunnyvale.
Boston. Sacramento. Santa Cruz, Austin, Raleigh, Ft. Lauderdale. and New Haven.
34 Should the City decide to do away with its disorderly conduct ordinance, which
the begging prohibition is a part. it should retain the portion dealing with public elimination [99
(g)], perhaps as a separate ordinance.
-31-
activity not only creates a mess, it also enables addicts to remain on the streets. The City should
also, by ordinance, prohibit emptying, without authorization, the contents of public and private
trash cans.
I. Other Enforcement Issues
Additional enforcement of the prohibition against public elimination and public
indecency also appears to be needed. Today, even if one is caught urinating in a store or home
doorway, there is often no consequence. Particularly for alcoholics, such conduct does not stop
until there is a good reason for it to stop, such as a real threat of punishment.
J. Ticket Lines
Unlike any other city where we have worked, there is an active means of financial
support for the homeless in Miami Beach from ticket running. Commercial ticket sellers in the
area hire homeless people to wait in lines for major concert and event tickets. When the time gets
close for the ticket window to open, the homeless will be compensated for their time, and be
replaced in line by an agent of the ticket seller who will then purchase the tickets.
There is little doubt that those companies and individuals hiring homeless people
to do that are feeding their addiction and enabling them to remain homeless. This makes them
somewhat vulnerable to shame if this practice is publicized.
However, there is no regulatory role for the city here, because the activity is a
voluntary economic transaction amongst adults.
K. The Homeless Committee
Before CLC began working with the City, a Homeless Committee was appointed
by the Mayor to look at homeless issues in the city. The Committee reported back to the City
Commission, providing it with recommendations, most of which involved spending tax money
on social services. The City Commission chose not to adopt these recommendations. prompting
the Committee to accuse the City of having an "unspoken policy of ignoring or exporting the
problem of homelessness."
This is grossly unfair.
-32-
Not agreeing with someone's political agenda does not make a person, or a City
Council, bad, or mean-spirited. Similarly, not agreeing to spend vast amounts of taxpayer money
does not mean that a city is ignoring a problem. Indeed, if it were otherwise, the only measure of
a city's attention to an issue would be how much money (earned by others) it spends on the
matter. We do not measure an individual's attention to issues solely by that yardstick; nor
should we measure local governments that way.
Our observation is that Miami Beach is quite aware of the people living on its
streets and in its parks, the problems they have, and the problems they create. Having large and
effective shelters in Miami, as well as valuable private sector initiatives, like the jobs program run
by Jewish Vocational Services, enables Miami Beach to forgo having large-scale programs on its
side of the Bay.
Contrary to what the Homeless Committee recommended, we see no need to
"fund or create a...homeless planning or coordinating agency." There is ample planning and
coordinating in the county, and any insufficiencies in this realm are hardly the reason why people
remain in the street, parks, and beaches in the city.
lfthe City's efforts on the homeless need augmenting, it is in law enforcement. to
impose and enforce rules, while encouraging people to seek the help them desperately need.
L. Pottinger
The city government and police in Miami Beach do have one constraint that other
communities do not have - Pottinger v. City of Miami.
Pottinger was a constitutional challenge to certain practices of the Miami Police
Department. The Pottinger court issued a decision that was fraught with new legal theories,
policy decisions disguised as constitutional law, and statements about homelessness that seem
grossly misinformed and outdated.
The actual result of the case, however, was relatively minor, in that its ruling only
narrowly circumscribed police conduct. As a result of Pottinger, the police may not arrest or
sanction a homeless person for "life-sustaining conduct" if the person has no realistic access to
private property to engage in this conduct. Despite the limited ruling, the case has made police
departments in southern Florida hesitant about sanctioning conduct by homeless individuals, or
individuals who appear to be homeless.35
35
The Pottinger case has gone through numerous appeals, and has a complicated
(continued... )
..,..,
- .:u -
Very few activities in the course of anyone's day are life-sustaining. As humans,
we must sleep, we must eat, we must drink (liquids, not alcohol), and we must engage in
elimination functions. These biologically-necessary activities are constitutionally protected in
South Florida when performed in public - but only if the individual engaging in them has no
other option to doing them in public.
Not every homeless person qualifies under this standard. Those who choose not
to seek shelter, or who choose not to take a family member or friend's offer of a place to sleep,
can be sanctioned for even "life-sustaining conduct" engaged in public.36
Moreover, under the decision, a city must provide some public space for option-
less homeless people to engage in this conduct. The decision is not an instruction to cities that all
public spaces must be open for a homeless person to move in. Under Pottinger, there must be a
time and a place for life-sustaining activities, but that does not mean that all parks. the beach, or
the residential and commercial areas of the city must be become a campground or refuge camp.
How did Miami get itself into this mess? Similar constitutional challenges were
launched against Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Huntsville, West Hollywood, and Santa Ana - yet all of
those cities prevailed (or have prevailed thus far).
Miami, though, lost. We suspect it is because they did not try. Unlike other cities
facing similar litigation, our understanding is that Miami did not depose the named plaintiffs, did
not seek "friend of the court" assistance from supportive national and community groups, and
did not present evidence about the nature and causes of homelessness to challenge the theories
and political ideas presented by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, Miami did not contest the figures
presented by the plaintiffs as to the homeless population in the area, or resist the counterintuitive
notion that the police can know with certainty who is homeless.
Perhaps more than lack of effort is behind the result in Pot:inger. Miami found
itself in court with bad facts. The Court found that the "the City has a pattern and practice of
arresting homeless people for the purpose of driving them from public areas." This is an
impermissible purpose, as no city may try to rid itself of a segment of its population because of
who they are. Rather, the legitimate scope for governmental regulation is with .....1,hat people do.
35(...continued)
procedural history. It appears to be headed for a negotiated settlement. Such a settlement may,
but will not necessarily, void the court decision and bind only the parties to the case.
36 Non-essential conduct in public remains a valid subject of municipal regulation,
regardles~ of whether a person's homelessness is voluntary.
-34-
If a city avoids such an impermissible purpose, it should be able to avoid decisions like
Pottinge,-37.
Miami also ran into the wrong judge for this kind of case. The judge's objective is
easily identifiable: it is more public spending to house the homeless. There is nothing wrong with
this agenda - what is wrong is a federal court using the law to pursue it.
By attempting to tie a city's ability to enforce rules of public conduct with the
availability of shelter space, the court effectively holds the public spaces of the city hostage,
saying that unless and until the city spends what I, the judge, want, on what I, the judge, want,
the community cannot have usable and enjoyable public spaces.
Other mistakes can be identified in the logic of the decision. By focusing on what
the City of Miami was allegedly trying to do, the court was playing amateur psychoanalyst, rather
than reviewing judge. Motivations are difficult enough to figure for individuals; it is an
impossibility at the level of a city government, when impermissible motivations, when they exist,
only exist in the minds of some individuals.
The Pottinger Court went from bad to worse, accepting the notion that common
law enforcement is "harassment," thereby adopting the complaints of street alcoholics who, not
surprisingly, would prefer to be left alone with their addictions intact. The Court also saw little
harm in the colonization of public parks - essentially the unilateral taking of these otherwise
community spaces for personal use.
All of this came with the Judge's view ofhomelessness as a result of economic
dislocations or a sad turn of personal events. This is a romanticized view, out of tune with the
sociological evidence, and ignores the simple fact that few of us would be on the street no matter
what happens to our job.
Perhaps the worst part of the decision, and the case. was its attempt to create two
wholly separate sets of laws - one for the homeless and one for everyone else. In a country
dedicated to equality under the law, this attempt is not only \\-Tong and unworkable, it is
dangerous.38
37 We saw no evidence whatsoever of any such illicit motivation in Miami Beach,
where there is a commitment to focus solely on conduct, not status or demographics - and only
conduct that has an real deleterious affect on others using public property.
38
The Court also misused the legal doctrine of "overbreadth." No law is
(continued... )
-35-
In sum, Pottinger offers us amateur sociology, bad psychology, and law unhinged
from precedent and constraint. The decision, which has not been followed by other courts in
similar cases, is a shame, but still not much of a constraint on Miami Beach, and should not
prevent the City from adopting any of the recommendations in this report.J9
X. Lack of Business Improvement Districts
South Beach, in recent years, had four business improvements districts ("BIDs"),
which had their own funding to market, improve, and provide additional security for their areas.
The BIDs operated on Lincoln Road, Ocean Drive, Collins Avenue, and Washington Avenue.
All three of the BIDs are now gone. They vanished, as best as we can tell, through
a combination of a decision by the property owners themselves (that the extra costs of the
associations was not worth it), and a decision by some within the city government (that such an
autonomous governmental force was inconsistent with their notion of power).40
Regardless of the reason, the lack of self-governing organizations has come at a
cost for the affected areas. The City has not made up the slack. The services, marketing,
improvements, and so forth that could come with these associations are not currently provided to
the same degree that we would expect from a BID. This cost is therefore paid by the property
owners, and those who visit these areas.
The decision to eliminate the BIDs so soon after they were started also goes
against the evidence that similar districts, or business improvement districts, have had a dramatic
benefit in improving urban areas, including with trash collection, marketing, lighting, deterring
panhandling, sidewalk maintenance, and being a political force for urban cores. Such districts in
Atlanta, Dallas, New York City, Baltimore, Winnipeg, Nashville, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, and
3\ ...continued)
unconstitutional because it is "overbroad." Rather, overbreadth is a doctrine relating to who can
sue in federal court, and is limited to freedom of speech cases. In its rush to make policy for the
city of Miami. the Court ignored these constraints and enjoined practices of the Miami police
Department because it found certain policies to reach too far.
39 Furthermore, the presence of the new Homeless Assistance Center in the county,
and the forthcoming opening of a second such center, may make POllinger just as sad legal
footnote, because no one in the county will be without a viable option to life on the street.
40 Unlike many BIDs in other parts of the country, the South Beach organizations
received much of their funding directly from the City.
-36-
Philadelphia have turned around these cities' central districts making them, once again, pleasant
places to live, visit, shop, and work. Miami Beach was on the road to these benefits as well, until
the rug was pulled OUt.41
XI. Conclusion
Miami Beach has difficult street order maintenance issues to address, some of
which result from the City's own actions. However, we see the situation improving soon for
both residents and visitors. We see improvements coming from more rule adherence by
owners/operators of nightclubs, and from raising the standards of public conduct. Most
especially, we hope to see an increase in police resources, commensurate with the extent of
problems in the city, and its large influx of visitors. Additional police on the street will provide
the appearance of order, confidence for visitors, and enforcement of public conduct ordinances.
We hope that this report will lead to a new message of new expectations of public
conduct, rule enforcement inside and outside the city's many nightclubs, improvements in the
physical appearance of Washington Avenue, greater enforcement of the county juvenile curfew
ordinance, and a new prohibition on minors entering nightclubs.
In addressing the city's homeless problem, we hope to see a greater utilization of
social services in the county, and a reduced tolerance of life on the streets. The county already
has some of the best homeless facilities in the country. The City's challenge is to motivate
people to use them. Although a federal court decision puts some constraints on the city and its
police, Miami Beach may still insist on standards of public conduct. We also hope to see a new
panhandling control ordinance.
CLC is honored to be a part of Miami Beach's effort to improve the safety and
attraction South Beach, and the public spaces throughout the city. CLC is committed to helping
the City, and is available to answer questions about this report and other issues, make public
presentations, participate in community discussions and debates, and respond to questions from
the local media. We look forward to the improvements to come, and to seeing Miami Beach
become an even better place to visit, shop, live, and have fun.
41 Portions of testimony CLC provided to the New York state legislature on the
benefits of business improvement districts are included in the appendices to this Report.
Interestingly, although the idea of BIDs in South Beach, for now, has been put
aside, the general concept of assessing property owners for services BIDs provide has not. We
understand that the Washington Avenue Task Force has asked the City to assess club owners,
and to use. these funds to provide police that will be stationed outside these clubs.
-37-
"JUST NOT WORKING RIGHT"
CONFRONTING THE GROWING DISORDER IN MIAMI BEACH
A REPORT BY THE CENTER FOR LIVABLE CITIES, me.
APPENDICES
-Vl-
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF A SIDEWALK USE ORDINANCE
The Center for Livable Cities does not advocate for or against any legislation.
It offers model ordinances to describe its conclusions, based on its constitutional research. of
an approach to an urban problem that is likely to be accepted by reviewing courts.
Section 1. Statement of Legislative Intent.
(a) Public sidewalks in business districts are created and maintained for the primary
purposes of enabling pedestrians to safely and efficiently move about from place to place,
facilitating deliveries of goods and services, and providing potential customers with
convenient access to goods and services.
(b) During normal business hours, the public sidewalks in downtown and neighborhood
commercial areas are prone to congestion, and should be kept available to serve these
pnmary purposes.
(C) Except in places provided therefor or where reasonably necessary, sitting or lying on
the public sidewalks in downtown and neighborhood commercial areas during the hours
of greatest congestion interferes with the primary purposes of the public sidewalks,
threatens public safety, and damages the public welfare.
(d) Pedestrians, particularly the elderly, disabled, or vision-impaired, are put at increased
risk when they must see and navigate around individuals sitting or lying upon the public
sidewalk.
(e) The public welfare is promoted by economically healthy downtown and neighborhood
commercial areas which attract people to shop, work, and recreate. These areas provide
easily-accessible goods and services. employment opportunities, and tax revenues
necessary to support essential public services, and the economic productivity necessary to
maintain and improve property within these areas.
(f) The accessibility of public sidewalks is a vital component needed to keep commercial
areas as the community meeting place, fostering community life, interaction, and
integration.
(g) In some circumstances people sitting or lying on the sidewalks deter many members
of the public from frequenting those areas, which contributes to undermining the essential
economic viability of those areas. Business failures and relocations can cause vacant
- Vll-
storefronts which contribute to a spiral of deterioration and blight which harms the public
health, safety, and welfare and can lead to crimes against persons and property. An
important factor in protecting public safety is attracting people to the streets and
sidewalks of the City's business districts, because the presence of many law abiding
citizens serves as a deterrent to crime and increases the public's sense of security and the
safety of all.
(h) There are numerous other places within the downtown and neighborhood commercial
areas where sitting or lying down can be accommodated without unduly interfering with
the safe flow of pedestrian traffic, impairing commercial activity, threatening public safety
or harming the public welfare. These other places include city parks and plazas,
alleyways, private plazas, arcades, and common areas open to the public, and generally
on private property with the permission of the property owner. In addition, public
sidewalks outside the designated hours and designated areas are available for sitting or
lying down.
Therefore, the limited regulation of sitting or lying down on sidewalks is both reasonably
necessary and appropriately balances the public interest and individual rights.
Section 2. Sitting or lying on public sidewalks in downtown and neighborhood
commercial zones.
A. Prohibition. No person shall sit or lie down upon a public sidewalk, or upon a
blanket, chair, stool, or any other object placed upon a public sidewalk, during the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. in the following zones:
City Council]
I. The Downtown Zone, defined as the area bounded by . . . [to be set by
2. Neighborhood Commercial Zones, defined as areas zoned as . . . [to be
set by City Council]
B. Exceptions. The prohibition in Subsection A shall not apply to any person, or
persons:
I. sitting or lying down on a public sidewalk due to a medical emergency;
2. who, as the result of a disability, utilizes a wheelchair, walker, or similar
device to move about the public sidewalk.
3. operating or patronizing a commercial establishment conducted on the
- VIlI-
public sidewalk pursuant to a street use permit; or a person participating in or attending a
parade, festival, performance, rally, demonstration, meeting, or similar event conducted
on public sidewalk pursuant to a street use or other applicable permit.
4. sitting on a chair or bench located on the public sidewalk which is
supplied by a public agency or by the abutting private property owner; or
5. sitting on a public sidewalk within a bus stop zone while waiting for
public or private transportation.
Nothing in any of these exceptions shall be construed to permit any
conduct which is prohibited by any other unmentioned city ordinances.
C. No person shall be cited under this section unless the person engages in
conduct prohibited by this section after having been notified by a law enforcement officer
that the conduct violates this section.
Section 3. Penalties
Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance constitutes a civil infraction and
subjects the offender to a fifty dollar fine or an equivalent amount of community service
to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 4. Severance.
If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance and/or its application
to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, it shall in no way affect the validity of any remaining portions of
this Ordinance.
Additional References
Seattle's experience with its precedent-setting ordinance can be explained by
Sandra Cohen. an attorney with the Seattle City Attorney's Office. Ms. Cohen can be reached at:
Seattle City Attorney's Office; 600 Fourth Avenue, 10th Floor; Seattle, W A 98104-1877; (206)
684-8218.
-lX-
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE OF AN ANTI-AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING ORDINANCE
The Center for Livable Cities does not advocate for or against any legislation. It offers model
ordinances to describe its conclusions. based on its constitutional research. of an approach to an urban problem
that is likely to be accepted by reviewing courts.
Section I.
Definitions
For purpose of this section:
A.
"Aggressive manner" shall mean:
1. Approaching or speaking to a person, or following a person before, during
or after soliciting if that conduct is intended or is likely to cause a
reasonable person to fear bodily harm to oneself or to another, or damage
to or loss of property or otherwise be intimidated into giving money or
other thing of value;
Continuing to solicit from a person after the person has given a negative
response to such soliciting;
Intentionally touching or causing physical contact with another person
without that person's consent in the course of soliciting;
Intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of a
pedestrian or vehicle by any means, including unreasonably causing a
pedestrian or vehicle operator to take evasive action to avoid physical
contact;
Using violent or threatening gestures toward a person solicited;
Following the person being solicited, with the intent of asking that person
for money or other things of value;
Speaking in a volume unreasonably loud under the circumstances;
Soliciting money from anyone who is waiting in line for entry to a building
or for another purpose.
2.
....
.).
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
B. "Soliciting" shall mean asking for money or objects of value, with the intention
that the money or object be transferred at that time, and at that place. Soliciting shall include
using the spoken, written, or printed word, bodily gestures, signs, or other means with the
purpose of obtaining an immediate donation of money or other thing of value or soliciting the
sale of goods or services.
C. "Public place" shall mean a place where a governmental entity has title, to which
the public or a substantial group of persons has access, including but not limited to any street,
-x-
highway, parking lot, plaza, transportation facility, school, place of amusement, park, or
playground.
D. "Financial Institution" shall mean any banking corporation, credit union, or
foreign exchange office as defined in Section of the state code.
E. "Check cashing business" shall mean any person duly licensed by the
superintendent of banks to engage in the business of cashing checks, drafts or money orders for
consideration pursuant to Section _ of the {state banking law}.
F. "Automated teller machine" shall mean a device, linked to a financial institution's
account records, which is able to carry out transactions, including, but not limited to: account
transfers, deposits, cash withdrawals, balance inquiries, and mortgage and loan payments.
G. "Automated teller machine facility" shall mean the area comprised of one or more
automatic teller machines, and any adjacent space which is made available to banking customers
after regular banking hours.
Section 2.
E.
F:
Prohibited acts
A.
No person shall solicit in an aggressive manner in any public place.
B.
No person shall solicit on private or residential property without permission from
the owner or other person lawfully in possession of such property.
C.
No person shall solicit within twenty feet of public toilets.
D.
No person shall solicit within twenty feet of any entrance or exit of any financial
institution or check cashing business or within twenty feet of any automated teller
machine without the consent of the owner of the property or another person
legally in possession of such facilities. Provided, however, that when an
automated teller machine is located within an automated teller machine facility,
such distance shall be measured from the entrance or exit of the facility.
No person shall solicit an operator or other occupant of a motor vehicle while such
vehicle is located on any street, for the purpose of performing or offering to
perform a service in connection with such vehicle or otherwise soliciting the sale
of goods or services. Provided, however, that this paragraph shall not apply to
services rendered in connection with emergency repairs requested by the operator
or passenger of such vehicle.
No person shall solicit from any operator or occupant of a motor vehicle on a
-Xl-
M.
Section 3.
public street in exchange for blocking, occupying, or reserving a public parking
space, or directing the operator or occupant to a public parking space.
G.
No person shall solicit while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled
substance.
H.
No person shall solicit by stating that funds are needed to meet a specific need,
when the solicitor has the funds to meet that need, does not intend to use funds to
meet that need, or does not have that need.
1.
No person shall solicit in any public transportation vehicle; or at any bus, train, or
subway station or stop; or in any public parking lot or structure.
J.
No person shall solicit in a group of two or more persons.
K.
No person shall solicit within six feet of an entrance to a building.
L.
No person shall solicit within twenty feet of any valid vendor location [as defined
in Section XYZ of the city code].
No person shall solicit within twenty feet of any pay telephone, provided that
when a pay telephone is located within a telephone booth or other facility, such
distance shall be measured from the entrance or exit of the telephone booth or
facility.
Penalties
Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance constitutes a misdemeanor punishable
by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars, or
by both.
Section 4.
Severance
If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall in no way affect the validity of
any remaining portions of this ordinance.
- XIl-
APPENDIX C
EXCESSIVE NOISE ORDINANCES
The following is from eLe's "backgrounder" on excessive noise:
The vitality of our nation's cities and towns depends upon preservation of urban
centers that are pleasant and enjoyable. For many communities, an important factor in building
the quality of life is the preservation of peace, tranquility, and civility in public areas. A pleasant
environment can make all the difference between a thriving urban area shared by the entire
community and a declining area that is eventually abandoned by residents and visitors alike.
Excessive noise is one of the chief urban quality of life problems in many cities.
Excessive noise -- whether from boom boxes, car alarms, factories, street musicians, or the
mentally ill -- can make normal conversation, productive work, or some solitude all but
impossible. This noise causes residents and visitors to go elsewhere to dine, shop, or relax,
somewhere that is quiet and peaceful.
Many cities, large and small, have made efforts to preserve or restore some peace
and quiet in their communities through noise ordinances that reconcile freedom of speech with
the community's interest in civil and welcoming public spaces. A number of cities, including
New York City, Dallas, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Mobile, Alabama, and Beaufort, South Carolina,
have enacted ordinances designed to combat excessive noise. These measures aim to regulate
conduct that is harmful to others, while permitting individual expression to flourish and
respecting constitutional freedoms. CLC has worked with a number of cities around the country
in promoting and defending these ordinances.
To combat excessive noise while at the same time protect the freedom of speech,
cities are turning to ordinances which consider the reasonableness of the noise under the
circumstances, rather than setting a maximum decibel level. This allows for flexibility, as the
reasonable level of noise varies with changing circumstances and the time of day. For example, a
volume level that might be intolerable on a sidewalk outside a shop might be perfectly acceptable
in a football stadium. Similarly, what is reasonable in a parade -- or in an emergency -- may not
be reasonable on a quiet Sunday. By prohibiting speech that is "unreasonably loud" or "loud or
unseemly," based on the surrounding environment, an ordinance operates with greater precision _
- and is thus more narrowly tailored -- than an ordinance imposing a "one size fits all" standard.
The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the constitutional right
to freedom of speech does not prevent reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner in
-Xlll-
which people choose to express themselves.42 Such restrictions are valid, provided that they "are
justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored
to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels
for communication of the information. ,,43
Excessive noise prohibitions meet these requirements. By limiting only the
volume of noise -- rather than its content -- such laws encourage public conversation. facilitate
commerce, and protect each individual's ability to enjoy common outdoor spaces, as well as
relative peace and quiet. These laws forbid excessively loud automobile noise, but do not ban
driving in the downtown areas. They prevent music from being played at an excessively high
volume, but do not ban music altogether. And they forbid loud shouting, but do not prevent
normal speech. Furthermore, these ordinances are content-neutral -- that is, they do not single
out any particular message or viewpoint for limitation or punishment, but rather apply to all
speakers equally.
In addition to First Amendment challenges, noise control laws have also
been challenged on grounds of vagueness. The "void-for-vagueness" doctrine requires that laws
be sufficiently definite as to give people of ordinary intelligence a fair understanding of what is
prohibited.44
The use of the term 'reasonable' in an ordinance should not make it
constitutionally vague. The law is replete with reasonableness standards. Moreover, vagueness
challenges should be rejected if a violator knew or should have known what is forbidden. An
ordinance where police officers are required to give at least one warning to offending parties
eliminates uncertainty as to whether a person is violating the law. Furthermore, many offenders
will stop once they have been warned.
4'2See. e.g.. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984): R.A.V. v. City
ofS1. Paul. 505 U.S. 377, 385-6 (1992): Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474. 481 (1988): U.S. v. O'Brien, 391
U.S. 367. 377 (1968).
4JClark. 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984).
44Citv of Beaufort v. Baker, 432 S.E. 2d 470. 473 (SC 1993): Kolender v. Lawson. 461 U.S. 352, 357-
58 (1983).
-XlV-
THE CLC ORDINANCE:
The Center jar Livable Cities does not advocate for or against any legislation. II offers model
ordinances /0 describe its conclusions. based on its constitutional research. of an approach to an urban problem
that is likely to be accepted by reviewing courts.
Section J.
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully disturb any neighborhood or
business in the City by making or continuing noise that is unreasonably loud
under the circumstances.
Section 2.
It shall further be unlawful for any person to willfully disturb any neighborhood
or business within the City by causing noise that is unreasonably loud under the
circumstances to emanate from either a moving or a stationary vehicle.
Section 3.
Law enforcement officials shall issue at least one warning prior to the
enforcement of Sections I or 2 of this Ordinance.
Section 4.
Violation of this ordinance is punishable by a $75 fine. Violators of this
ordinance are subject to a fine not to exceed $300 and up to ten days in jail if the
violation is within 30 days of prior infraction of this ordinance.
-xv-
APPENDIX D
LAS VEGAS LEAFLETING ORDINANCE
A two mile stretch of Las Vegas Boulevard (the Las Vegas Strip) is one of the
most famous. and crowded, streets in the country. On it are some of country's largest hotels.
The Strip is the center of the region's economy, housing and entertaining hundreds of thousands
of tourists, and providing jobs to thousands. The Strip is not in the city of Las Vegas. Rather, it
is located in an unincorporated part of Clark County.
The Strip, four years ago, had three major street order maintenance problems.
The first was panhandling. With input from CLC's staff (then with another
organization), the county adopted an anti-aggressive panhandling ordinance which has been
effective.
The second was t-shirt vending, which blocked intersections. Restrictions were
adopted by the county, and have been upheld in a constitutional challenge.
The third has been handbilling.
Handbillers pass out leaflets to passers-by, advertising sexually-oriented services.
The offered services include lap-dancing and similar forms of "adult entertainment." The
leafleteers are working for service providers that make millions of dollars off of visitors, many of
whom mistakenly believe that prostitution is legal in Clark County.
The handbillers created many problems. First, they blocked pedestrian traffic.
Secondly, they detracted from the family-friendly environment, with their often explicit
advertisements. Third, the handbillers were generally paid per piece. and therefore leaflet to
everyone, including women, children, and the elderly. Fourth, the service providers frequently
hired street people and day laborers to do their handbilling, who frequently litter, become
intoxicated, or act in aggressive manner. Fifth, the handbilling created a substantial litter
problem. both from pedestrians ridding themselves of what they have been handed. and from the
handbillers themselves who seek to reduce their supply.
The county's solution was to prohibit handbiIling - on the Strip. Handbilling
remains legal throughout the rest of the county, including on many other busy. hotel-filled
streets. and throughout the city of Las Vegas (including downtown).45
45 There is a handbilling ban at the "Fremont Street Experience."' The Fremont
Street Experience is a three block stretch of downtown managed by the adjourning casino-hotel
(continued...)
-XVl-
The handbilling prohibition on the Strip was challenged in federal court on First
Amendment grounds. A federal district judge upheld the ban, citing the community interests
behind it, its absolute content-neutrality (it applies to all handbillers, regardless of their
motivation, cause, or statement), and ample opportunities to handbill in other locations. The
plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Additional information about the Clark County anti-leafleting ordinance can be
ascertained from Sheriff Jerry Keller (Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada). Sheriff Keller can be
reached at: Las Vegas Metro Police Dept.; 400 East Stewart Ave,; Las Vegas, NV 89101-2984;
(702-229-3231). The county ordinance is being defended by attorney Paul Larsen. Mr. Larsen
can be reached at: Lionel, Sawyer & Collins; 1700 Bank of America Plaza; 300 South Florida
Street; Las Vegas, NV 89101; (702) 383-8819. The lawsuit challenging the ordinance was
brought by two providers of "adult escorts" that operate in the city.
4\...continued)
owners. .The area is covered by a canopy, costing millions of dollars, that provides music and
light shows.
-XVll-
APPENDIX E
JUDICIAL WATCH PROGRAM IN A TLANT A
The judicial watch program in Atlanta was part of a broad-based effort by Central
Atlanta Progress, Inc. ("CAP") to improve the safety and quality of life in downtown Atlanta.
CAP's efforts rank with the most comprehensive in the country, and included proposing new
street order maintenance ordinances, revising older city ordinances, providing research and
support to City Council members on the proposed ordinances, and a public education campaign
to build support for these measures. CAP also helped the City of Atlanta defend its (older)
panhandling control ordinance and parking lot safety ordinance in court. CAP also put
uniformed personnel on the streets, to alert the police when needed, and to answer questions
from visitors.
Another aspect of CAP's program was to monitor the judicial response in cases
involving Atlanta's street order maintenance ordinances. It was the observation of CAP and
others that the city's municipal judges did not take these ordinances sufficiently seriously, and
were far too apt to turn an aggressive panhandler or trespasser back to the streets.
The program involved keeping detailed records and statistics of prosecutions
under these ordinances (CAP was pleased with the City Prosecutor's willingness to bring these
cases). Using these records, CAP was able to evaluate each Municipal Judge as to his or her
willingness to enforce the laws and policies adopted by the City Council. The results of CAP's
review were widely reported in the media.
Our observation is that the judges did not appreciate this level of scrutiny. The
report, though, was followed by a greater willingness to sentence people to probation,
community service, and. when appropriate, jail time. CAP officials reported that the study
contributed to the impressive changes and improvements in downtown Atlanta.
References...... .
Two CAP officials who worked on the project, and are still with CAP, are Duaine
Hathaway and Richard Orr. Messrs Hathaway and Orr can be reached at: Central Atlanta
Progress, Inc.; 50 Hurt Plaza; Hurt Building - Grand Lobby; Atlanta. GA 30350; (404) 658-1877.
-XVlll-
APPENDIX F
CLC TESTIMONY TO THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE
ON THE EFFECT OF BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
There can no longer be any doubt that all residents and visitors to urban centers
have benefitted from the efforts of business improvement districts, their experience, investments,
social service programs, physical improvements, and commitment to the vitality of urban life.
In cities from coast to coast, business improvement districts are improving urban
centers on two broad fronts: by taking action to make these centers cleaner and safer, such as by
street and park cleanings, enforcing park rules, improving lighting, public education campaigns
aimed at deterring giving money to panhandlers that may be used for drugs and alcohol (and
directing charity to organizations that provide real help), and providing staff to walk the streets to
provide assistance and reflect order. Secondly, business improvement districts are bringing ideas
to local governments and communities on how to make urban life better.
The work of BIDs have included:
...... Conducting open forums on street order maintenance and homeless issues,
bringing to the community experts with diverse viewpoints and new ideas;
...... Bringing legislative ideas to City Councils, often providing legislative and other
research that local governments cannot conduct because of limited resources and
staff;
...... Providing expert testimony to City Councils on homelessness, the operation of
social service providers, and a wide variety of street order maintenance issues;
V Supporting local ordinances when they are challenged in the court, thereby
helping local governments when they are outgunned by the resources and
experience of litigious advocacy groups.
The results have been far from theoretical. Consider:
...... In Atlanta, the downtown BID has suggested rules and ordinances that have made
that city's downtown parks once again a place where all people feel comfortable.
and once again able to serve as an integrated community meeting spot;
-XIX-
...... In New York, BIDs have brought numerous city parks back from desolation and
abandonment, providing a welcoming and relaxing green space in the heart of
Manhattan. The residents and visitors to New York are "voting with their feet,"
using the parks for rest, reflection, and reading - because they are open,
welcoming, clean, and safe.
...... In Dallas, the downtown BID helped defend a variety of city ordinances when
their constitutionality was challenged in Court, providing expert witnesses,
research, and legal analysis i~ support of the City Attorney, enabling the City to
respond within 24 hours to a request for a sweeping injunction, and eventually
leading to a victory in the District and appellate courts;
...... In Eugene, Oregon, and Roanoke, Virginia, Houston (and many other cities),
BIDs have generated community discussion and debate on the appropriate
minimum standards of conduct for public spaces, holding speeches, presentations,
debates, and forums for elected officials, the police, community groups, and
citizens.
...... In Philadelphia and New York, BIDs are providing social services to the homeless
and other street people. Because these services are aimed at helping people get off
the streets and to independent lives, they have often been some of the most
effective programs aimed at this population, providing their clients with dignity,
respect, and responsibility, as well as practical skills.
In the past ten years, here has been nothing short of a revolution in the quality of
urban life and the quality of urban public spaces. The revolution has rescued the tax bases,
stemmed the flight of the middle class from the nation's urban centers, and stemmed the trend
towards segregation and the possibility that large cities would only be for the rich and very poor.
This progress, we believe, was possible because of the help and support of business improvement
districts.
Business improvement districts have increased property values, returned green
spaces to the use and enjoyment of the general community, made urban centers more fun and
more attractive, and made it easier and more pleasant to walk down a sidewalk where they are
operating. In sum. our work with over one hundred cities leads us to conclude that BIDs are a
tremendous ally and an asset for all residents and visitors to urban centers, regardless of their
income, station in life, property interest, race, or politics.
-xx-