City Hall, News & Politics, The City

Aggressive Panhandling, Targeted by Burgess, Is Not Among Downtown Residents’ Main Concerns

By Erica C. Barnett, Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:47 AM
View Comments

L-R: DSA's Kate Joncas, Bill Block, Tim Burgess, Pete Holmes, Dan Satterberg

At a public-safety forum held by the Downtown Seattle Association this morning, City Council member Tim Burgess rolled out a five-point proposal somewhat grandiosely titled “Addressing Street Disorder to Preserve Jobs and Improve Our Quality of Life.”

Number one on the list (which also includes adding more police officers downtown and increasing street outreach and housing capacity) was a ban on so-called aggressive solicitation, which includes not just panhandling but canvassing by nonprofit groups.

Burgess’ proposal would bar panhandlers and canvassers from blocking a person’s path; using gestures or language that cause fear or alarm; asking for money repeatedly after someone has said no; providing services that weren’t requested (a la NYC’s squeegie guys), or soliciting within 15 feet of anyone who is using an ATM or private parking pay station.

This morning, Burgess said he wasn’t aiming to “stop people from asking for assistance or money” or “criminalize homelessness,” but to deal with people he said were “basically street thugs who are preying on our preying, whether because of addiction or because of greed for money.”

In a press release, Burgess pointed to a DSA survey that found that “66 percent [of downtown residents] were concerned about aggressive solicitation.” What Burgess didn’t mention is, according to that survey, aggressive solicitation was a distant third on the list of downtown residents’ top concerns, behind drug dealing (75 percent) and dangerous drunken behavior (69 percent). And only 32 percent of downtown residents said they were “extremely concerned” about aggressive panhandling, compared to 46 percent who were extremely concerned about drugs.

Moreover, although Burgess cited a separate survey finding that 23 percent of Seattle residents “avoid downtown because of fear of crime or personal safety.”

The four-member panel—which also included city attorney Pete Holmes; King County prosecutor Dan Satterberg; and King County Committee to End Homelessness project director Bill Block—also talked about nightlife, low-level drug offenders, and the need for more cops downtown.

Holmes said he is in the process of coming up with new nightlife regulations, working with bar and club owners “who recognize that if they’re seen as having an unsafe industry… that is going to be counterproductive to their bottom line.” Holmes said the policy changes could include a proposal to stagger closing times so that some bars could close as late as 4am, to deal with “the problem of, how do you allocate your resources when demand is [spiking] at the same time all over the city.” A move to stagger hours would have to be approved by the state liquor control board.

Asked what he would do to improve the safety of downtown late at night, Satterberg said, “The concern I have about nightlife is not what happens inside the club, it’s what happens at closing time outside in the parking lot.

“A visible police presence is necessary outside clubs,” Satturburg continued. “People who are up to no good aren’t going to [engage in] criminal conduct if they see a police officer on the street. They’re going to move on.”

  • LH
    Dave - 1) the levy was approved by the voters. 2) And as it relates to the Council's Nov. 2009 decision to review street outreach services - it's just a review of how the agencies we fund to do outreach do their work, we don't know at all that more funding or more services will result.
  • Matthew
    Bravo, Tim Burgess. It's about time. The aggro panhandling on practically every street corner, street kid encampment on Westlake, thugs all up and down Pine, drunks on Pike, open dealing from Belltown to the ID, and general amount of menacing/deranged/drunk/tweaked denizens that seem to rule the streets are making downtown a very unpleasant place to be. I don't understand why this small percentage of the population gets to rule the streets, while the vast majority of us have to put up with their sometimes just irritating, but often dangerous or intimidating, behavior. I for one, welcome the effort to make downtown a safer, more welcoming place for those of us who want to spend time there without feeling like we've stumbled into Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. This plan sounds like a good start.
  • Mr. X
    Wow. I think Tim Burgess actually just called all of those earnest young canvassers I see in the U-District from Save the Children, the ASPCA, PETA, and Greenpeace "basically street thugs who are preying on our preying, whether because of addiction or because of greed for money.” Talk about elevating conflation to an art (I wouldn't even call the Ladouchebags that, let alone a homeless person who asks someone feeding a parking a meter for a buck).

    Dave, I'm sorely disappointed that you'd let your support for items 2 through 5 on the list (which I'm all for, too) outweigh the red flags that item 1 on this agenda raise. Try not to let access fog your vision.

    There are legitimate public safety problems throughout Seattle that certainly ought to be addressed, but keeping shoppers safe from feeling uncomfortable because someone asks for spare change doesn't rate.
  • Seattle_Steve
    Aggressive panhandling is a huge problem is downtown and as someone who experiences it daily, I'd say I am real pleased that someone responsible is attempting to do something about it without resorting to Sidran type tactics.

    You go Tim. Until my Mom feels safe about doing anything downtown we can pretty much give up on green dreams of a more compact city that's carbon zero.

    It is high time for all of us on the left to recognize this serious subject and make meaningful progress. It is bigger for the environment than most any other issue.
  • LH
    Meinert - What increased services to help the mentally ill and addicts?
  • Meinert
    from the plan:

    Better Coordination and Expansion of Outreach Efforts
    During the City’s budget process last fall, the Council issued a Statement of Legislative Intent directing the Human Services Department (HSD) to review current outreach and engagement services to people who are homeless. Specifically, the Council asked HSD to look at the coordination of services among human services agencies and the criminal justice system and research best practices from different outreach models around the country. This review is underway and a final report is due April 1, 2010. The Council will be ready to act on recommendations presented in the report to improve these services.
    More Housing for Homeless and Those with Mental Health
    and Chemical Dependency Challenges
    For several years the City and the County have focused on the laudable goal of providing permanent housing solutions to end homelessness. This work has produced stable housing for thousands of households and we can’t stop; the City must continue to adopt and apply cost effective measures to rapidly house individuals, getting them off the street quickly while providing them with the services they need to maintain stability. The City Council will soon adopt the Housing Levy’s Administration and Finance Plan that will allow for the continued development of more housing with support services.
  • belltown23
    Do you think that the April 1 "final report" be publicly available in something like a complete form? Not just a summary, but a report on what has worked, and what hasn't worked in the outreach and engagement services that have been tried around the country. It would be very interesting if the report included enough information so that the efforts "around the country" can be compared with any somewhat similar efforts that Seattle has tried for the local homeless folks.
  • hmmmm
    For all of you that were still living in Texas, CA or the East Coast in the 1990's: Seattle already had this discussion, already passed the laws, already had some of them knocked off the books due to constitutionality. Ever heard of mark Sidran? Jane Noland? No? No investigation, no right to speak. Didn't do a bit of good to rid the city of the evil panhandlers back then, as evidenced by the fact that they are still here. It's such a cheap political ploy to appeal to those who didn't see the movie already, to those who didn't live here. But, by your standars (Steve) since anyone who has lived in Seattle, well since before ECB moved here, is not worthy of an opinion, then go right ahead. It's your taxes. In ten years you noobs will all be saying the same thing as I, when the next generation of council people get into office, and you are dying to get rid of Burgess because he's a (insert all epithets to describe Nickles).
  • Meinert
    I'm from Seattle and was here during Sidran's reign, and helped defeat him when he ran for Mayor. Burgess is far better than Sidran. He of course has the advantage to see the mistakes Sidran made, and has information gleaned from a decade of studying other efforts to deal with the street disorder Burgess and others wish to address.

    This plan is not meant to do away with panhandling. It's meant to do away with overly aggressive, threatening solicitation propagated by panhandlers and some sketchy non-profit workers. These folks are helping make downtown feel less safe, and as a result there is less tourism (an Italian tourism mag just talked about Seattle being a bad place to visit because it's no longer safe), and generally less business downtown. Businesses are downsizing, closing, and moving out of downtown. We can this with the move of Elliot Bay Books out of Pioneer Square, the downsizing of Old Navy, Flying Fish moving to South Lake Union, and many other businesses for sale or planning to close.

    Of course, not all of this can be blamed on aggressive solicitation. Open air drug dealing and use, auto prowls, and even just people sitting with their pit bulls blocking off sections of Westlake Park to other people, all add to the problem. Which is why Burgess' plan doesn't stop with aggressive solicitation rules.

    I'm hearing the response to this plan are 10-1 in favor, so we should expect easy passage through council.
  • Meinert
    I support Burgess' plan, and I know from talking to him that he is also concerned about the open air drug dealing downtown. The conversation between service organizations, businesses and residents downtown definitely includes ideas about how to deal with the crack problem, car prowls, and general street crime.

    I'm super glad to see the Council continue their support of more cops on the beat downtown and in areas with nightlife, as well as increased services to help the mentally ill and addicts. These ideas mixed with McGinn's ideas to help support small businesses and increase street life and public transit in the city are going to add up to Seattle being an even better place to live.
  • sarah68
    For several reasons I can't do buses so when I come downtown for meetings I drive and park. The biggest problem for me downtown is paying the outrageous parking fees on lots and in garages, mostly owned by Diamond so the City isn't getting any rebate for my carbon-non-neutrality. After I pay $13 for two hours' parking I'm mad enough to knock down a WWE wrestler. However, all I meet are very polite poor people who ask for a little change. It seems those are the people the merchants don't their customers to see. I guess Burgess thinks that instead of paying extra beat cops going after the drug dealers who are committing actual crimes, they should be posted near stores to catch poor people coming a half-foot too close to a tourist.
  • tpn
    There is already a term for aggressive panhadling. It is called "robbery" and robbery is already illegal. The fact that they are trying to effectively redefine panhandling as "robbery" is manipulative at best, Orwellian at worst. The victims of this are those who have the least power to object. It could be you someday, if present trends continue.

    The point of this newspeak maneuver is to generate the fear of the poor in the same manner as out fear of the criminal element, to create public support for more jobs for police (Burgess' constituency), and less funding to address the failures of our economic system; when people can see that failure personified as poor people on the streets, it makes people have second thoughts about the political agenda of those who benefit from that system, and second thoughts about that system in place. If people simply view "poor" and "criminal" in the same light, no need to question anything.

    In short, if we can make the poor go away visually thus mystifying it, and redefine being poor as criminal, we can continue to pretend that it is okay to have the extremely criminally rich make the rules. That is what Burgess' preservation of "social order" is about. Fuck him for mayor.
  • Tangent
    Nice dissertation that serves nothing.

    Tourists and suburbanites coming here don't care about having a free sociology lecture. It's just a vacation or a shopping trip. Shoving someone's nose in white guilt is not helping the shopper or the homeless.

    If you want people to come to Seattle and spend money there and come back, listen to what your downtown businesses are telling you. This is having an impact on the economic core of this city. You want to lose that money to the burbs or other cities, fine. Just remember that sales tax dollars from these visitors are a significant portion of what makes all this lovely social justice possible.
  • progressive
    Waaw. Down Town Businesses!!. Are you implying the rest of us don't count. Fuck Down Town Businesses. we pay tax and our voice counts. We all like Seattle and want best for our city. The problem is equating crime with poverty-- meaning being poor is crime is where we have problem with. Tim-- you don't get it, do you?
  • Tangent
    "Fuck Down Town Businesses. "

    Uptight Seattlite Cuts Off Nose To Spite Face, Film At 11. In Other News, Pope Wears Big Hat.
  • hmmmm
  • Tangent
    LOL. So this is what the vaunted enlightened progressives who frequent Publicola enjoy. Get your kicks out of outing an ancient Myspace page? Christ, you're pathetic.

    Got the balls to out yourself, "hmmmm"? Yeah, didn't think so. Bye.
  • tpn
    Wrong, dude. The main problem downtown is open drug dealing, fighting amongst users, and related property crime perpetrated by said users. The point is enforce the laws that already exist; don't pander to fear to gain polical points or to bloat police payrolls while doing nothing to solve the problem.
  • Tangent
    "The main problem downtown is open drug dealing, fighting amongst users, and related property crime perpetrated by said users. "

    That is certainly a problem but not one found in the shopping district around 5th. 3rd and Pike, the Market, absolutely.

    You call it pandering to fear, I call it making a more appealing city. Like I said, people don't give a damn about getting a lecture because seeing homeless people is "good for them." They'll just stay home next time.

    I also agree about enforcing laws on the books. Realize you want a sales tax based economy ... make downtown a more appealing place for shoppers.
  • free city
    "..making a more appealing city.." Not everyone thinks that a gated community is appealing. So, suppose we drive out all the homeless people, in order to create a more "appealing" retail environment for suburban shoppers... only to find out that some of these shoppers also have a problem with people of certain race, or physical characteristics. What if it turns out they don't like the way you look. Are you okay with being banned or restricted in your activities, for the sake of the greater retail environment? Should we establish a velvet rope around Seattle, with bouncers to determine who is sufficiently "appealing?"
  • downtown resident
    This is BS. I live downtown and LIKE many of the panhandlers I've met and befriended (and by befriended I mean I know a number of them by name, and regularly stop and chat with them and/or buy them coffee/lunch)... these panhandlers aren't the problem. There are a number of panhandlers who DO make downtown unpleasant. They need treatment, but are unwilling to get treatment. So yes, I do think there needs to be some kind of recourse to keep them from harrassing/verbally assaulting people who are walking the sidewalks. I personally do feel unsafe at times when someone is chasing me down the street yelling profanities at me.
  • nyc
    right. like NYC has experience? it feels so "gated" now doesn't it? give me a break.
  • Can I please hear from anyone who actually *experienced* aggressive panhandling, because I honestly don't understand what it even means. Is it the volume of the panhandler's voice? The amount of money they're asking for? And has anyone ever suffered from actual *aggression* related to panhandling? Or do they just avoid it by giving money to every panhandler they see on every occasion?

    We talk about the issue like it's fundamentally about anything of more significance than shoppers & suburban office workers feeling squeamish about the evidence of poverty before them, and yet there are zero stories being circulated about panhandlers actually behaving aggressively, except perhaps through a follow-up request for money.

    How about the Downtown Seattle Association just goes back to worrying about parking and the estate tax and leave the rest of us alone.
  • It's Criminal
    Aggressive is someone coming up to me at an ATM, standing at my shoulder asking for money until I am afraid to continue the transaction, cancel it and walk away without the cash I needed. It's a person who gets right in my face every day, several times a day for weeks until I lose patience and say "No" in a less than polite manner, and then they follow me for blocks until someone sees what's afoot, takes pity on me and stops that person by asking them some question. I thought about reporting that one, just to say if you find my dead body, look for this person. Yes, sometimes I'm afraid. I'm a woman, I don't usually have pockets with cash in them and won't take out my billfold. If someone comes up to me at a place where I have to take my billfold out, i.e. an ATM, or follows me down the sidewalk when there's no open business to escape into, that's aggressive behavior towards a captive audience.
  • downtown resident
    And following up, I've had some yell racial slurs, sexual slurs, and other just general profanities after I've declined giving them money. It's not the majority, but there are definitely a few regular panhandlers downtown who are just horribly aggressive.
  • downtown resident
    I live downtown and I'm glad DSA and Burgess are taking this up. There are plenty of panhandlers who are cordial, friendly, polite -- I've got no beef with them and have befriended a number of them. However, there are at least as many aggressive panhandlers who follow me down the street, try to rouse my dogs so that I can't just walk away, etc. Maybe you haven't experienced this, but I have and so have many of my neighbors and friends/colleagues who visit downtown regularly.
  • Michael G
    Certainly.

    I've had individuals follow me for several blocks after I have told them that I am uninterested. On more than one occasion I refused to give money to a panhandler after he told me an entirely implausible tale of woe, and he angrily berated me. Both of these incidents occurred near the Safeway in the U-District, which is a popular panhandling spot. To describe a move to crack down on these kinds of activities is "criminalizing homelessness" is an absurdity.
  • It's me taking money out of a BoA ATM at 2nd and Cherry, and a panhandler coming right up to me and asking for money. Or after saying "no", having the person continuing to ask, and say things along the lines of "clearly you can afford it, you're wearing nice (insert clothing item)".

    It is rather annoying.
  • our-values
    I think we are missing the point. Panhandling is neither a crime nor anti-social. what is a crime is politicizing the issue. I am fortunate enough to have everything I want in life, and I want to give a helping hand to those who are in-need.
  • Tangent
    Those well versed in social work and homeless outreach will tell you that giving panhandlers cash on the street is not helping them.
  • gnossos
    Having done social work and homeless outreach in Seattle for over 20 years, I'm one of the dissenters on this. I routinely give panhandlers change and make no bones about it.
  • LH
    I'm guessing ECB didn't cover the other parts of the proposal because the other 4 elements are not new.

    1. Foot beats – Councilmembers don't make deployment decisions for SPD. Simply saying that we need more foot patrols can't be considered a "response."

    2. The Neighborhood policing plan to add 20 new positions each year to the force has been in place since 2008 – it's not new and can't be considered part of a new proposal.

    3. Looking at how City funded agencies do street outreach. Council decided to do this study in November – this is not new and there is no pending action.

    5. Councilmember Burgess has suggested adding language in the levy program priorities to promote housing models that could produce housing for homeless individuals more rapidly and at lower cost. The Office of Housing is always looking to fund less expensive and quicker to build housing models.
  • i viola
    The problem is not the panhandlers but low-level drug dealers and crack users who contribute to the sketchiness of downtown. This is most of the problem around 3rd and James and pioneer square. One wouldn't believe the amount of drug dealing (most crack it seems) around the sinking ship garage, the corner of 2nd and Yesler and most 3rd between Yesler and Cherry. Hardly a cop, unless the paramedics are called. Its an easy place for the low-lifes to blend in among the destitute (but otherwise non-threatening) population both living their and using social services. Not to mention the influences from Harborview methadone clinic and the jail/courthouse area. That area's very complicated. Pine between 2nd-3rd is inexplicable, as the people doing deals and generally pacing the corners looking to do deals mingle among shoppers and office workers, but are much easier to pick out once the deals go down. I'm shocked that Seattle allows this area to function as it does.
  • Antiinumerate
    That's an incredibly inaccurate headline. It's not among main concerns, but you admit the survey shows 75% drug dealing, 69 % drunkenness and 66 % aggressive solicitation.


    Your headline is basically a falsehood. The survey shows yes, in fact it's right there at the top of the concerns and third place is among the main concerns.

    You see the Olympics, right? Woudl you say a bronze medal winner is not one of the "main" performers in a given event?

    You get a medal for third, but for this headline you get a lump of coal.

    In fact as pointed out w margin of error you really could say it's about equal to anything else. You're trying to say if two thirds say it's a concern, it's not a main concern? WTF?
  • A survey can't really have a "margin of error" when it was skewed and methodologically absurd in the first place. I bet 85% of the people surveyed would have said that high prices at downtown stores were a problem too. Would Burgess then be proposing price controls?
  • Entitled Hipster
    The worst part of McGinn's first(only?) term is going to be enduring all the preening, grandstanding, and bulls**t proposals from Burgess and Conlin who were too wussy to run against Nickels themselves.
  • John
    Since the housing market is slow. Bill-Block can take in-charge of the 3 years plann to end Pandhandling in Seattle. And sure 2013 housing market will rebounce. Sounds a Plann
  • John
    Bill Block-- He is now in-charge of 3 years plan to end PandHandling in King County than 10 years Plan to End Homelessness in King County. I GoT-iT..
  • Entitled Hipster
    Canvassers and panhandlers? Really? Annoying maybe, but hardly the biggest problem downtown. Has anyone been aggressively panhandled since the last law outlawing it? This is just Tim "I should have run for Mayor, but I was a wuss" Burgess grandstanding on a non-issue.

    Everyone who actually goes downtown(or the U-district) knows the real issue is a relatively small groups of teenagers that hangout at certain corners and bus stops to deal drugs and fight. Targeted, constant police presence, monitoring and enforcement is needed, not new laws. Yes, they are never doing anything when the police car is sitting at 3rd & Pike, because they're waiting for it to leave! Yes, these teens will move to the next corner, follow them to the next corner!

    But its so much easier to go after an elderly panhandler or the kid collecting for Greenpeace.
  • John
    It's not just teenagers dealing drugs. But you're right that it's good police work (and sufficient personnel) that will help solve the problem.
  • Persnickety
    All of these elements contribute to the people's perception that downtown is unsafe these days. One of the major problems is that people don't know the difference between panhandling, homeless, or loitering teens. Even Erica tosses panhandling and homeless into the same sentence in her post, after the panelists went to great lengths to underscore the importance of not lumping them together. Until we can update our understanding these issues, and most importantly, the language with which we use to talk about them, we will not be able to effectively advocate for the solutions the panelists outlined this morning: funding allocation for mental health support, permanent housing, and programs to educate people about how giving money to panhandlers exacerbates the problem.
  • erickoszyk
    Is this an incomplete sentence?:

    "Moreover, although Burgess cited a separate survey finding that 23 percent of Seattle residents “avoid downtown because of fear of crime or personal safety.”"
  • Neil
    Coming up with punishment without understanding the symptoms of the problem is what is happening. We need to solve the problem --if there is one without punishing the poor
  • Tangent
    Symptoms are easy to identify ... lots of panhandlers, many from out of town coming to a liberal city where entitlements are cheap and plentiful.

    Personally I prefer pragmatic solutions to problems, if we are waiting to eradicate poverty and drug abuse before doing anything about homelessness then no solution will ever be found.

    Prohibiting aggressive panhandling and solicitations, particularly in the Westlake/5th Avenue corridor, is not punishment.
  • Progressive
    I know Tim you are getting ready for 2013, but i tell you-- this is a bad start. You don't want to be an odd with powerful, and well-organized progressive and liberal establishment of the city. Your previous bill which was something to do with so-called bad "tenants ordinance" has raised some serious questions about your committmentn to social justice.
    I know you are nice and very intelligent man, but your conservative political view is offputting many people. This pandhandling thing is making many people unhappy.
  • morning fizzy
    To 75% and 69%, 66% is a distant third? I'd say it was within the margin of error.
  • The methodology of the survey was laughable. The margin of error was approximately 125%.
  • Danimal
    But the panhandling fix is only 1 of 5 of Burgess' proposals in his announcement. The other four address the other concerns highlighted in the survey of downtown folks re: drug dealing and dangerous drunk behavior: http://timburgess.com/

    1. Return of fixed-beat police foot patrols in specific areas.

    2. Continued hiring of new police officers to enable full implementation of the Neighborhood Policing Plan.

    3. Well-defined restrictions on aggressive solicitation on city streets.

    4. Expanded scope and better coordination of street outreach offering support services to homeless individuals.

    5. Increased housing capacity combined with support services for the homeless and individuals struggling with mental health and/or chemical dependency challenges.
  • Thanks, I was wondering about this while reading Erica's opinion and argument.

    I read in the Seattle Times about two weeks ago that agressive panhandling was one of the issues the downtown retail business owners identified.
    The intercity mobility and the price of parking (solve one, solves both) we other issues.
blog comments powered by Disqus