Boozer:  I'm guessing the Courts will eventually decide if this ban is a "traffic safety matter" or a blatant attempt to circumvent the Constitutional Protections provided by the First Amendment.  

I've yet to read of a single incident of a traffic accident being caused by someone passing spare change to a panhandler.  I've yet to read of a single incident of a panhandler being struck by a vehicle.

If you follow the "traffic safety" logic, Springfield should make it completely illegal for pedestrians to cross main street.  Why don't you tally the number killed crossing that street and compare it to the number of panhandlers struck by vehicles.

The proposed ban is, indeed, that "end run" I suggest.  I don't expect the City or any supporters of the ban to acknowledge this (although a few posters on this site have done so).   I don't expect the Police Chief to acknowledge it.  I don't expect the City Council to acknowledge it.  I don't expect Springfield's attorneys to acknowledge it