It’s become an increasingly familiar sight at busy intersections of late – people stationed on medians and at corners, holding handmade signs, seeking money from passers-by.

A number of communities, including Providence, Cranston, Warwick, and Johnston, have in recent months ceased enforcement of local ordinances meant to crack down on panhandling – also referred to as “aggressive” begging or solicitation in the language of the local laws seeking to bar the activity.

An April legal settlement between Cranston and the American Civil Liberties Union’s Rhode Island chapter, which brought suit on behalf of panhandlers, included a finding that the city’s ordinance as constructed represents a breach of the First Amendment’s free speech rights. That prompted several other cities and towns – fearing costly litigation – to halt their own enforcement activities.

The local ACLU chapter hailed the settlement with Cranston as a “victory against the criminalization of poverty.” Perhaps the most central argument of the ACLU and its allies has been that the local laws target the homeless and impoverished, but not others – such as firefighters and youth groups – who raise funds through roadside collections.

The end of enforcement has brought a resurgence of pandhandling activity. While Providence remains the epicenter of the issue – particularly in Kennedy Plaza – it has become the subject of significant concern elsewhere.

Cranston’s City Council last week unanimously backed a resolution calling on state leaders to take action and provide guidance on the issue, with members citing fears over public safety.

Media outlets and talk radio have also focused on the issue. Garnering particular attention have been reports suggesting some engaged in panhandling are part of organized collection schemes seeking to take advantage of the public. Other stories, like one appearing in the Warwick Beacon this week, have focused on the backgrounds, circumstances, and routines of individuals who have turned to the activity for survival.

The courts, at this point, have clearly sided with the ACLU and those opposed to the existing ordinances. Frankly, we believe they have done so with good reason. Well intentioned though the local laws might have been, we find the constitutional concerns brought forward through legal challenges to be compelling.

That is not to say we are disagree with concerns over safety, or that we are unsympathetic to those who lament the troubling, uncomfortable presence of beggars on so many local corners and medians. No one who cares about our state wants Rhode Island to be known as a haven for panhandling, just as no one with a heart wants to see others in the community driven to such a desperate means of trying to get by.

How, then, do we move forward?

The hope would be for those truly in need to find the help they need through other avenues, such as the state’s social service programs and organizations. That, of course, includes treatment and assistance for those dealing with mental illness and addiction. It also includes affordable housing, which can provide the kind of stability vital to helping those in difficult situations get their lives back on track.

We hope the spotlight currently fixed on the panhandling issue will produce renewed support for the efforts of those who strive to aid the most marginalized members of our communities.

We additionally urge motorists to follow the advice that all involved parties, including law enforcement and advocates for the poor and homeless, have offered – do not give money to those soliciting donations at roadside. Those who would seek to exploit the situation will cease such activities if they become unfruitful, and those truly in need will, hopefully, seek help elsewhere.

The panhandling issue is difficult and frustrating, and there is no simple answer. Perhaps about all else, it lays bare – in a way we otherwise rarely see – just how dire the straits are for too many of our fellow Rhode Islanders.