Quint Studer, co-owner of Bodacious Olive and Bodacious Brew, was surprised to hear his businesses have been targeted for a boycott after the Pensacola City Council passed anti-panhandling ordinances. He said the boycott organizers have not contacted him or asked for information on what the Studers have done to help the homeless.
If they had, they would have learned the Studers have donated over half a million dollars to the Waterfront Rescue Mission over the years. The Studer Foundation helped provide 5,000+ meals and blankets to the hungry and homeless in the Pensacola area in the fourth quarter of 2016. See video.
The Studers also funded a shelter for women and families for two years, The Beacon. Read PNJ and SCI.
The Boycott organizers say that businesses can be removed from boycott list “by releasing a public statement to the Pensacola press with evidence of your business’s material support for the homeless population AND a denunciation of the anti-panhandling ordinance.”
Are half a million dollars, 5,000 blankets and meals, and running a homeless shelter enough evidence?
Stay tuned.
Smells like an Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson style corporate shakedown to me. One of these days Studer is going to get fed up with this kind of petty crap and move on to greener pastures. The guy has done more for Pensacola than most of the other folks around here combined.
Talbur,
One more thing: Are you also saying the ordinances outlaw homelessness? The penalties are civil, not criminal. We agree the mayor’s 2013 ordinance that banned blankets, sleeping bags and any temporary shelters on city land did have the effect of criminalizing homelessness. We fought it and eventually the mayor and council repealed it after the January 2014 freeze.
The people who have ignored the serving the homeless population and have the real power to do something are Mayor Hayward, his administration and the majority of the city council. They even a plan how to do it -for which they paid $30K and has sat on a shelf for over two years.
Some of the businesses you are boycotting and their employees do more daily for the homeless than any one at city hall. They know many of their names and histories.
Again, we believe any discussion by the city or county of panhandling without addressing helping the homeless is wrong. It’s position we took years ago and still support.
Talbur,
As far as the interview. we will do even better. We will record the entire interview and give you a digital copy and the transcript. You can publish it on your websites. Email me to set up the time and place. Thanks
Talbur,
I know that Carmen’s and its owner have not signed the petition forhe mayor’s ordinances or “vocally supported” them, as you claim. We scanned other media reports and found no mention of Carmen’s. If you have any such documentation, please send to us and the other media. Thanks
CJ, I would like to ask commentators to show a little more patience before saying that the organizers did not ‘do their research.’ It is absolutely impossible to cover every nook and cranny of the legality, implications, and ambiguities regarding the ordinance, its history, downtown pensacola’s history, etc. etc….
Regarding the DIB, below is a link to their by-laws. Legally, they are a not-for-profit corporation. They self-describe as quasi-governmental. If, in fact, they are not, this is evidence of shape-shifting on their part, not necessarily anyone’s ignorance. I learned a lot from your post and I’m glad I found it. It did not occur to me to read the City’s designation of the DIB because, as the DIB documents indicated to me, they are a not-for-profit. I will certainly look into it when I feel like nerding out a bit.
The boycott page reads ‘like a manifesto’ because we are passionate advocates for the homeless population, not lawyers. Additionally, we are all working class and are doing everything in what little free time we have, and prioritized certain aspects of the boycott over getting up to our ears in legal documents. We trust the ACLU is on that.
DIB by-laws
https://assets.downtownpensacola.com/bylaws.pdf
*I see now what you’re saying about the inconsisty, that we are protesting legislation yet *also* asking businesses to materially support the homeless population. I can’t speak for everyone, but this isn’t an inconsisty so much as an addition. Asking businesses not to spend their time and resources outlawing homelessness, and to instead support the needy is a coherent message, I believe. It seemed like a good opportunity to rally support for direct services. It was also a way to avoid the commentary on the boycott falling into the trap of criticizing us for not advocating for material solutions. But as we all know, commentary will do what it does anyway — if it wants to criticize, it will find a way.
What were the other businesses that supported the ordinance? I would love to add them to the list.
The boycott is in response to the anti-panhandling legislation. If a business on the list doesn’t speak out against the ordinance, they are still on the list. That is made very clear in the event text.
I think it’s great that Studer donates money to charity. But most big businesses do. It’s the ordinance this is all about. Also, what happened to those shelters?
I will do an interview over a chat, as long as the full text of the interview is made available somewhere in the article. I’ve had too much experience with press picking and choosing what to quote and simplying complex positions.
Talbur Tal-Tai,
Thank you commenting. According to the page, the boycott is about panhandling, but you tell businesses to get off your list that are have to do something for the homeless. Seems to be inconsistent.
Also you omitted several downtown businesses that have also supported the ordinances. A few not listed were very vocal on the issue. Why were they omitted?
I look forward to your reply and would love to have a reporter interview you. You can contact me at rick@inweekly.net.
-Rick
BTW: We agreed that the ordinances are violations for free speech, as were the ones the mayor supported and the council approved in 2013 and the ones that filed to win approval in late 2011.
Haters are going to hate. The Studer’s have done so much for Pensacola, Bodacious stores do not deserve to by boycotted.
Or is they are perhaps that energy is better spent somewhere else after some research. IMO
The Boycott Facebook page does seem to read a bit like a manifesto with a certain “shakedown” element to it. It seems to obscure the key legal issue which is if a municipality can regulate “passive” conduct in a public right-of-way. The part about the Pensacola Downtown Improvement Board (DIB) is overblown, misleading and displays a lack of knowledge of the part of the City Code where the DIB is defined, its mission assigned and its limited powers enumerated. For the record, the DIB is part of the city government even if its board often claims otherwise. The DIB is not an “independent state agency” or a “not-for-profit” corporation or a “quasi-governmental body.” The DIB is a “dependent special district” and an “agency of the city” just like its counterpart the Pensacola Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).
Reasonable people can argue about the new law’s ambition to regulate “passive” conduct, conduct that is now legal everywhere in the City of Pensacola and Escambia County but may soon no longer be legal in a new thirty block “Downtown Visitors’ District.” A good question many have asked is if the city government exercises the municipal power to regulate active panhandling, soliciting and begging, why not do it citywide? Why should residents and businesses in the Downtown Visitors’ District be treated differently from those in other parts of the city? It hardly seems like a smart move to push the panhandlers east to Seville Square, west to the Community Maritime Park or north to near Cordova Mall, etc. Those of us who live in Uptown Pensacola already see the panhandlers putting down footholds in front of Target, Fresh Market or at the intersection of 9th Avenue & Creighton Road, etc.
Putting aside the regulation of passive conduct issue that presumably will only be resolved in a federal court, the new law will look remarkably like the old law at least in the heart of Downtown Pensacola. As example, under the current law, active panhandling, soliciting and begging is prohibited in front of the two businesses unfairly mentioned above – Bodacious Olive and Bodacious Brew, as well as Carmen’s also on the boycott list. The current panhandling law regulates a “lot” more than just aggressive panhandling. Under the new law, active panhandling, solicitation and begging will still be prohibited in front of the Bodacious Olive, Bodacious Brew and Carmen’s. Whether the new law will be more actively enforced than the current law remains to be seen. It might be helpful if the media printed a map showing those parts of the proposed Downtown Visitors’ District where active panhandling, soliciting and begging is already regulated to include at bus stops, within 20 feet of an ATM, in sidewalk cafes, etc.
The boycott is protesting legislation that the Studer group supported. That is, legislation that makes it illegal for homeless people to ask for spare change near his businesses. The organizers are fully aware that big businesses often donate to charities (rewarded by tax-write offs!). Implying the organizers did not do their research is careless, as the very quote used in this article states that in order to get off the list the business needs to speak out against the ordinance, not just donate to charities. On the other hand, maybe the Studer group didn’t do their research. If you read the boycott description, the fact that this is about a law against panhandling is very clear.