City Hall, News & Politics, The City

DSA: Panhandling Proposal Isn’t Rich vs. Poor

By Erica C. Barnett, Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 1:22 PM
View Comments

Data compiled by the Downtown Seattle Association—a group that has been outspoken in favor of city council member Tim Burgess’ proposal to crack down on aggressive panhandling—contradicts Real Change director Tim Harris’ suggestion, made at a public forum earlier this week, that downtown is made up mostly of “the affluent” who want to protect their “cathedrals of consumption” from “the dirt poor.” Harris said, “If you’re rich living downtown, no matter how many moats you have, [being asked for money] is going to be unsettling.”

However, the average income downtown is actually substantially lower than in the city as a whole. Downtown residents make a median income of $35,806 per household, compared to $57,476 in Seattle as a whole. Rent for nonsubsidized apartments ($1,218 on average) is slightly higher than the citywide average ($1,146); however, 44 percent of the subsidized housing in the city is located in the center city, and 84 percent of the people living downtown are renters.

Yes, there are rich people living downtown (although fewer than anticipated a few years ago—See: the failure of projects like The 1, Eighth and Seneca, etc.)—but far more of downtown’s residents are poor. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Burgess’ proposal—including the critique that it simply won’t work, because panhandlers don’t chase people down the street and yell when cops are present—but the claim that the issue is one of rich downtown residents against the poor simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

  • Tim Harris
    98101 downtown zip. Average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) in 2004: $115,946 (Individual Income Tax Returns)
    Here: $115,946
    State: $54,331
    Is this relevant?
  • sarah68
    Read the draft ordinance, people. It talks about "Downtown." The effect it has on other areas of Seattle will be incidental to the purpose of the ordinance, which is to protect Downtown Seattle merchants from losing tourist customers. Seattle comprises about 88 square miles; this ordinance is designed for probably 1/2 square mile of that huge area.
  • Tim Harris
    The many low-income housing developments, as well as the permanently impoverished people who claim downtown addresses by virtue of living in homeless shelters, depress the average downtown income figures. When I talk about protecting the comfort zones of the affluent, I'm obviously not talking about them. I'm talking about downtown condo dwellers and the trend toward increased affluence in that area.

    Lets look at housing/condo values. According to latest income data by zip on City-Data.com, if you average the home values of the 3 primary downtown zips — 98101, 98121, and 98104 — you get $555,755 as the typical house/condo value. That's 80% higher than the WA State average home/condo value of $308,100. That's affluence Erica.

    For comparison purposes, the average home value in Lynnwood is $365,723, and the average gross income is $46,335. Does it pass your smell test that the average Lynnwood resident makes about $11K more annually that your typical downtown condo dweller? Of course not. You just had to stop and think about something other than Tim Burgess' talking points.
  • joshuadf
    Tim--I don't much like this proposal, but as ECB points out you are off base claiming that downtown is wealthy. Comparing owned home values is as silly as looking at land value because the vast majority of us rent. For example, the average U-District home is just as expensive but that doesn't mean it's full of rich people. I'd actually argue that Lynnwood probably has higher affluence--I couldn't afford a $365k house (and the cars needed to survive Lynnwood) but I can certainly afford to rent in the city.
  • kirhac
    Lynnwood,...huh? You ought to visit before you punch out crap,... One doesn't buy in Belltown without wealth. Renters can rent there more easily, yes. But this panhandling ordinance is citywide. Laws on the books cover more than this ordinance would cover and without ambiguity,...
  • joshuadf
    I don't think either of us is trying to bash Lynnwood. I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy as averaging for-sale properties. There are simply a lot more housing options near downtown Seattle, and the majority of them are rentals.
  • ivan
    This argument is totally irrelevant. Affluence in this context is qualitative and not quantitative. People who are reduced to begging for money on the street are the issue, not median house prices.
  • ratcityreprobate
    How many hours panhandling will a panhandler have to panhandle to pay a $50 fine for panhandling?
  • Anc
    For everyone who sees race/class warfare in this measure, let it be known that Atlanta (with a majority black Council and black mayor) has similar regulations and even goes a step further by having undercover officers pose as tourists.

    http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/...
  • ivan
    It's bullshit in Atlanta and it's bullshit here. Especially offensive to me is the argument that people "need to feel safe," as if this was something that legislation could fix.

    People have a right to be on the public streets. They have a right to ask you for money. People call me on the phone all the time and ask me for money. There's no difference. Enforce the laws that are on the books, quit this whining, and quit this disgusting pandering to fear.
  • Anc
    Same thing? Don't be retarded. There is quite a big difference between someone connected to you only by a phone line asking for money, and someone asking you for money when you have your back to them and are physically handling money.

    Also there have always been limits on Free Speech. Considering this is only a limit on where you are allowed to beg, and not begging itself I don't see what all the bleeding hearts are crying about.
  • just a thought
    At the end of the day all this proposed ordinance will result in is "three point lines" 15 ft from every atm and parking machine downtown. And on the other side of those lines will be the panhandlers while the real thugs are still doing their thing and driving the serious crime rate up
  • Anc
    Three point line is enough distance to be able to react if they decide to proceed in a more threatening manner.
  • sarah68
    You can say "no" in either case. You can also say "no" when someone knocks on your house door--i.e., comes onto your own property--and asks you for money, which certainly isn't outlawed. And there are very few limits on free speech. This isn't analogous to crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
  • Anc
    What are you talking about, all you have to do to keep people from coming on your property is post a 'No Trespassing' sign. Anyone comes up to ask for money, call the cops and get their ass arrested.

    Aggressive panhandling, especially when one is vulnerable (has their back to you) and is handling money is very much a threat. It is not unreasonable to ask people to stay back 15 feet.
  • buffeliscious
    In all this discussion, I haven't seen one actual report of this so called "agressive panhandling" and never have I been agressively panhandled. This is just a way for merchants and excessively wealthy people to control the movements and actions of people with less.
  • Mr. X
    It's almost as fun to see self-styled liberal classists deny their classism as it is to watch teabagging racists rationalize their racism.
  • They're just generous, so they want to give the poor a superpower -- invisibility.
  • Michael G
    Jon Scholes of DSA pointed this out during the forum as well, and it's important point. The argument that the proposal is an anti-homeless/anti-poor measure is both in contradiction to the evident facts and extremely insulting.
    .
    It is important to note that the ordinance would apply city-wide, not just in downtown. The problem of aggressive panhandling is even worse in the U-District, from which I moved away last year, in no small part due to the wide range of anti-social and miscreant behaviors. The "rich vs. poor" meme is even less sensible in the U-District, where it is ramen-eating grad students who are preyed upon. However, the U-District, lacking effective political organization due to the transient nature of its residents, is often overlooked.
  • When you write "The argument that the proposal is an anti-homeless/anti-poor measure is both in contradiction to the evident facts and extremely insulting.", what facts are you talking about, and who is the argument insulting to?

    Because without an elaboration, I'd have to say that your declaration is exclusively anecdotal and appears desperate to take umbrage with someone about something.
  • ratcityreprobate
    So I guess according to DSA this proposal can be characterized as: "Not as Rich as YOU Think VS Poor." Or maybe is is "Just Us Lower Middle Class VS Poor. Somehow it always ends up VS Poor.
  • morning fizzy
    A` straw man argument used against a straw man argument...cool.
  • tpn
    The onus of proof is on Burgess. Let's see the numbers. Not anecdotal e-mail evidence; no one e-mails when they are downtown and ecounter no problems, do they?
  • Just a thought
    I will say it again; is there any proof that the panhandlers are one and the same as the thugs who are grabbing cellphones at busstops or beating people up in Belltown? The assertion I read yesterday that somehow the more serious crimes would diminish as a result of cracking down on panhandling is illogical. Those more serious crimes are allready subject to severe penalties/incarceration that should alter the "conduct" of those who commit those crimes. This is really a soundbite law as its effectiveness, enforceability and possible drain on police and city re$ources are all concerns.
  • onionbag
    This is a solution in search of a problem - the truly agressive panhandler is already in violation of one or more laws around threatening behavior or lawful public conduct and the ones that make us uncomfortable by their presence, not their behavior, won't be subject to new enforcement measures in the Burgess plan.

    Rather than waste time and money on the inevitable legal challenge, let's open several more day shelters and have DSA contribute to their upkeep - that's the best way to reduce the perceived problem of a downtown no one (read middle-class consumers)wants to visit.
  • Erica, has Burgess or the Council released evidence-backed numbers of the complaints yet?

    Do we have any numbers on how many police reports were related to panhandling in 2009?

    Without 3rd party evidence like this, it's all just people shouting viewpoints and of no use.

    There's still no public evidence that we have some great plague of Aggressive Panhandlers swarming downtown. You guys really ought to report on the numbers like this to see if this is anything more than feel-good legislation getting us all twisted up.
  • sarah68
    The voices of the affluent -- whether they are a statistical majority of people living downtown or not -- are heard a little more clearly than the voices of the poor, especially in City Hall. The affluent residents and the merchants -- especially the merchants -- are the driving force behind this ordinance. Arguing about numbers is irrelevant. Tim Harris's and others' comments still stand true: the affluent and the merchants are complaining about the people who they feel sully the image of the downtown they want to present to tourists and incoming businesses. They're trying to sell their wares (including the City as a whole), and they want "clean" streets to present to their customers. That's understandable. It's also just plain mean.
  • tpn
    It's an matter of preserving the desire to consume for people that have disposable income. That is the main rub of the proposed ordinance. The well off benefit through sales, the landlords benefit from rents collected from those sales, and the banks benefit from the notes paid with those rents---but indirectly, which is why the DSA can make their very slippery argument that it has nothing to do with disparities in wealth. The DSA assumes that we do not know how money trickles up; any 5th grader can figure it out.
  • hobgoblin
    Bravo. Thanks for the comic book version of economics. And now please describe for all the 4th Graders out there where tax revenues that pay for human services come from.
  • buffeliscious
    Not enough tax revenues from the wealthiest 10% in my opinion, hob... "Agressive panhandling"?! Really! This is clearly about class. Poor people make excessively wealthy people uncomfortable. People with way more money than they need don't want to be reminded that they don't really work all that much harder than people who are left to holding out their hand for a little "trickle down". It's not about the people who live down there. It's about the ones who shop there. If people don't want to share their excessive wealth, then they need to learn how to get along with the impoverished people they create with their greed.
  • hobgoblin
    Hmm. I know it's tough for Real Change to carry on a class war without a foil or a bogeyman, but... if I remember right, DSA supported a King County sales tax for mental health and substance abuse programs and has been an outspoken proponent of the Downtown Emergency Service Center's 1811 Eastlake "wet" housing. Not exactly the actions of the anti-poverty, ship-'em out of town group Harris likes to portray them as.
  • sarah68
    Hobgoblin, I'm not Tim and I'm not affiliated with Real Change. This isn't a class war promulated by Real Change, although Harris and Real Change are certainly leaders in pointing out stupid ideas like this ordinance. Many individuals and organizations are against it because it is 1) not necessary since there are already laws prohibiting aggressive panhandling 2) pushed--aggressively pushed--by one small segment of the City, not the citizenry as a whole, and certainly won't benefit them as a whole. What more do you need to figure out it's not a good idea?
blog comments powered by Disqus