When used relative to a set of numbers, the term “median” is the middle value. To determine it, you have to separate the higher half of the numbers in the set from the lower half.
Some would say that principle also applies to the city’s recently enacted median-centric ordinance, likening the higher-ups to those in power and the lower-downs to the city’s financially insecure population who rely on panhandling and “flying a sign” to make a little money.
Medians divide lanes of traffic to increase safety. They also provide refuge for pedestrians and others not in vehicles to cross roadways safely. And there’s no doubt that more people have taken refuge on those medians in Columbia’s highest-traffic areas in recent years to solicit money from passing motorists. The recently passed pedestrian safety ordinance, B265-25, slated to go into effect July 1, 2026, prohibits tenancy on most medians in Columbia. According to a City Council memo and the city website, violations may result in a fine, typically ranging from $10 to $500. Repeat violations could require a court appearance and other legal repercussions. In most cases, however, violations may be referred to the Columbia municipal court’s community support docket, which is an alternative court process for individuals experiencing homelessness and veterans who have been charged with a local misdemeanor.
While the majority of the City Council believes the measure will decrease median-related traffic incidents, others contend it’s a way to get the homeless population out of sight. It’s a conflicting-rights scenario that’s playing out in many towns and cities across the country. Columbia is no different.
The Gist of B265-25
The ordinance will apply to intersections where at least one adjacent roadway has a speed of 35 miles per hour or faster, has traffic counts of 15,000 or more vehicles per day, and/or contains a median six feet wide or less. Only one of these three criteria needs to be met for enforcement of the ordinance to apply.
At these locations, pedestrians may not cross a roadway unless at a crosswalk, pedestrian-controlled light, or intersection. Pedestrians cannot be in the median for more than two cycles of walk lights. Vehicle occupants cannot enter or exit a vehicle in a traffic lane. People cannot be on any roadway where a pedestrian route (like a sidewalk) is available, except to lawfully cross the roadway as previously described. People cannot approach a vehicle on the roadway unless it is lawfully parked. People cannot cause a vehicle to stop or maneuver in a way that impedes normal traffic flow, nor can vehicles stop or maneuver in a way that impedes traffic flow.
There are all sorts of accommodations for law enforcement, emergencies, permitted workers, people with disabilities, permitted special events, taxis, public transportation, and bicyclists. But what you’re likely to notice when driving around Columbia after July 1 is the lack of people on medians on the city’s most trafficked thoroughfares.
The Pro Viewpoint
The Ordinance Is All About Safety
The issue of safety of pedestrians and motorists gave impetus to the ordinance. The city hired CBB Transportation + Planners to examine the issue, and the firm delivered its final safety study report to the council in November 2025. The study showed that between 2019 and 2023, 32 percent of fatal crashes in the city were pedestrian-related, a figure exceeding state and national rates.
Because this ordinance focuses on medians, CBB needed to look at the number of pedestrian-related incidents involving medians. CBB reviewed incidents from 2015 to 2024 and found that of the accidents occurring at intersections, 29.2 percent of them had medians. Furthermore, the report explored driver distractions that lead to crashes, including unexpected incidents “such as pedestrians in the medians waving signs, dancing in costumes to advertise for businesses, or entering the roadway to approach vehicles.” The report stated: “Erratic driver behavior caused by mis-located pedestrians on roadways can often be dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users.”
Although the CBB study has an obvious focus on medians, Lt. Clinton Sinclair of the Columbia Police Department noted the ordinance is about far more than that.
“This ordinance isn’t just about people standing in medians. It’s crossing mid-block, approaching vehicles, stopping vehicles that are in the roadway,” he said. “This ordinance is designed to get pedestrians out of roadways, especially high-speed and dangerous roadways. There are some parts of the ordinance that are directed at motorists, as far as allowing people to enter or exit your vehicle while the vehicle is in a roadway. It’s really meant to just make the roadway safer for both vehicles and pedestrians.”
Sinclair acknowledges that some people think the ordinance is targeting panhandlers, but he disagrees.
“We’re not concerned about what they’re doing. We’re not concerned about the fact that they’re protesting or panhandling or waving signs or fundraising for an organization,” Sinclair explained. “We’re just looking solely at the conduct that’s making things unsafe.”
There are a lot of voices, beyond the five council members who voted to enact the measure, who said they support the ordinance based on safety. Those include spokespeople for organizations such as the Business Loop Community Improvement District and Columbia Chamber of Commerce, as well as private individuals who commented on the ordinance at council meetings.
Others agreed Columbia streets should be safer but said the city should improve roadway infrastructure to make them less risky for everyone who uses them, rather than prohibit people from standing on medians.
But those who oppose the ordinance, particularly on behalf of the unhoused population, read the measure as another attack on an already vulnerable population that the powers that be in the city don’t want people to see when they’re in Columbia.
The Con Viewpoint
The Ordinance Is About Hiding the Homeless
Most people whose comments were recorded at council meetings opposed the proposed ordinance. Most did so based on its impact on the unhoused population in Columbia.
Catherine Armbrust, director of CoMo Mobile Aid Collective, says her organization has repeatedly spoken out against it, issued media releases, spoken up at council meetings, and lobbied the group’s supporters to do the same.
“We stand firmly opposed to it. It’s rooted in marginalization and criminalizing poverty,” Armbrust said. “If you think about the history of it locally, it was raised by people who just very much don’t want to see people panhandling. Most of the folks that speak out against panhandling aren’t as concerned about the safety of drivers or the people involved. They just don’t want to see people doing this because they think it looks bad.”
CoMo Mobile Aid Collective meets unhoused people where they are, offering meals, water, medical services, and pet care, among other immediate services. What some view as a public nuisance, Armbrust sees as people suffering from financial insecurity trying to help themselves. She also gives them credit for being creative problem-solvers who will figure out how to continue gathering donations from motorists.
“I think that it will just be a much smaller intersection,” Armbrust says. “So, of course, this won’t eliminate the existence of people doing this. It’s just going to move them to other areas where they’re probably less likely to make money because there’s much less traffic.” Besides smaller neighborhood streets, some people may move into The District in downtown Columbia. Except for one or two places downtown, the new ordinance won’t apply because its roadways don’t meet B265-25’s criteria.
Nickie Davis, executive director of The Downtown CID, says her organization chose not to take a yea or nay position on the new ordinance. While she says business owners want increased pedestrian safety, they think this ordinance will send more panhandlers downtown.
“I don’t want to say that, absolutely, that’s what’s going to happen. But it’s definitely a concern,” Davis says.
People panhandle on sidewalks in The District, and many don’t obey the existing ordinances there, such as no panhandling within 10 feet of a building entrance or near ATMs, banks, or bus stops. Davis says instances of danger from panhandlers are rare, but the perception of them is negative.
“Usually, they’re more dangerous to each other than they are to customers around downtown. But it is definitely a perception issue,” Davis says.
More panhandlers competing for choice spots downtown could create more problems for law enforcement. According to Sinclair, officers are currently educating panhandlers and sign flyers about the impending implementation of the ordinance. And once it goes into effect, officers will have discretion about how they deal with offenders, using mostly warnings and saving citations for repeat offenders.
Panhandling Is Not Illegal
Panhandling isn’t illegal. In fact, it’s protected as free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Similar ordinances passed in multiple municipalities across the country have been challenged successfully on that basis by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Moves by ACLU Iowa, for example, have resulted in the repeals of such ordinances in several cities in the state.
Although no legal action has been brought against the city for passage of the pedestrian safety ordinance yet, it’s likely to happen. Then, it will be the duty of the courts to determine whether B265-25 is all about safety or too much about making some inconvenient people disappear from public view.
