Tim Burgess’ aggressive panhandling law, up in council committee this Wednesday, has taken a beating from civil liberties activists and advocates for the homeless, who say it will unfairly target low-income people and violate the Constitution. The proposal, among other restrictions, prohibits panhandlers from following people down the street, using abusive language, panhandling from people using ATMs, and otherwise heckling people who refuse to give them money.
The latest debate, raised by Real Change director Tim Harris, centers on a supposed “15-foot bubble” that Harris says protects people using ATMS and parking meters from panhandling even after they’ve left the meter. Harris wrote a scathing editorial last week accusing Burgess of “lying” by claiming his legislation would only apply to people during or immediately after they use an ATM or a parking pay station.
“[S]ay someone uses the Bank of America ATM at Westlake Center, exits right and walks, cash in hand, past the street kids that hang out near the sculpture on the way to the Starbucks across the street.. A kid asks for money. Does s/he get a ticket? Probably depends. That’s a bad law,” Harris wrote.
I generally oppose legislation that targets a specific class of people—in this case, the poor folks who panhandle downtown. And I agree with folks like Jordan Royer—former city council candidate and a vocal proponent of the once-controversial downtown Alcohol Impact Area—that the ordinance will be difficult to enforce and vulnerable to lawsuits. (What I don’t agree with is that it would target Girl Scouts—unless Girl Scouts are suddenly shouting obscenities at people who refuse to buy, following them down the street, or threatening them physically, that’s just a silly red herring.)
But I don’t agree folks like Harris who argue that downtown is safer now than it used to be. I’m downtown every day, and the neighborhood definitely feels less safe now than it did a few years ago. On a near-daily basis, I feel harassed, hassled, and even threatened by aggressive (usually male) panhandlers who follow me down the street after I ignore them or refuse to give them money. A friend who lives in Belltown avoids whole areas of her neighborhood at night because of the gantlet of yelling, aggressive street drunks she would need to navigate just to go to the corner store. And just the other day, I saw a man chase a family of three, screaming at the top of his lungs until a uniformed MID ambassador came over and made him go away.
Is that anecdotal? Sure. So is Harris’ assertion, made at a public-safety forum last week, that Seattle is safer than every “real city” he’s ever been to.
But I do think it’s telling that so many of those advocating against this law are folks, like Harris, who aren’t likely to be harassed, due to their gender, race, and size. It probably does feel safer to Harris, a tall, broad-shouldered white man, than to someone in a wheelchair, or someone carrying an easily grabbable purse, or a single woman walking alone.
That isn’t an argument for new restrictions on panhandling—which, frankly, I think are unlikely to have much impact on real or perceived safety downtown. But it is an argument that opponents of the law should consider why some people may think it’s necessary, and suggest better solutions instead of insisting there isn’t any problem to begin with.
The city council’s public safety committee will take up Burgess’ legislation this Wednesday, March 17, at 9:30 am. Burgess says he’ll offer an amendment that would make it clear that the law only applies to people engaged in intimidating behavior, something the latest version doesn’t make clear.
Tweet
So I'm still baffled by this–I get tagged by people sometimes downtown for change, I get at least monthly the “I need $5 to get home to Bremerton” routine, but I never see any of this stuff that happens and I'm all over downtown sometimes around 10p-12am, especially on weekends. I work in Belltown.
What blocks is this stuff happening on, exactly? I see sketchy people–where don't you, in a city?–but they never say a damn thing to me like all this.
Unless there is a expanded police presence to observe the behaviors this ordinance targets, they are still going to continue. Wouldn't all of the behaviors listed above fall under disorderly conduct or at least allow for the charging of that offense which is allready on the books?
Are you kidding me? Seattle certainly is on the safe end of North American cities but it nothing compared to many “real cities”. I have lived in Stockholm for 6 months and I can't remember a *single* time that I have been hassled for any reason.
Once I was downtown on 3rd Ave handing out fliers for an election and this guy maybe a few years older came over to me and said something along the lines of “give me money”, I said sorry don't have any. He aggressively asked why and I said that I only use credit cards. He then had to gall to say that there was an ATM around the corner adding that he was a gangsta. I said no again and turned around and walked off. This all took place at around 5 pm. Image if this happened at 10 pm.
ECB – the provision relating to asking for money within 15 feet of persons using an ATM or parking pay station, or persons who have just used or are on their way to use an ATM or parking pay station applies to everyone. you do not have to be yelling or doing anything else scary, merely asking a person using an atm or paystation for money w/in 15 feet of pay station or atm is in itself, by definition, aggressive.
Like this: http://zipcon.net/~jvf4119/Girl%20Scouts.htm
Either allow panhandling or do not allow panhandling. Stop f@#$ing around with these nitpicky laws that are ambiguous and skirt the real issue. This is just another tool for the cops to pick people up on.
I like Burgess, but apparently he does not have the balls to come out and force a conversation about a major issue facing the City of Seattle. What is it, Tim – do you think people have the right to panhandle or not? Issues are rarely black and white, however, sometimes a little courage to actually confront the issue head-on is needed. The issues of homelessness, drugs, economic inequality, criminal behavior, etc. are not going to subside as long as we want to have it both ways – they will just continue to fester.
“…who follow me down the street after I ignore them or refuse to give them money. A friend who lives in Belltown avoids whole areas of her neighborhood at night because of the gantlet of yelling, aggressive street drunks she would need to navigate just to go to the corner store. And just the other day, I saw a man chase a family of three, screaming at the top of his lungs until a uniformed MID ambassador came over and made him go away.”
Stalking is already illegal. Drunk and disorderly alreay illegal. Attempted assault and battery, already illegal. Aggressive panhandling, already illegal Will passing another law objectively make one any safer from these already illegal activities? If there are no police already enforcing these very precise laws on behavior, how can one expect the police to enforce a very inprecise one?
I think this is the correct link:
http://zipcon.net/~jvf4119/Girl%20Scouts.htm
“…so many of those advocating against this law are folks, like Harris, who aren’t likely to be harassed, due to their gender, race, and size.”
Is that a survey that you've done? Kind of like the “survey” that DSA did to determine that 3 out of 4 or whatever the spurious number was of Seattle residents who are afraid to be downtown? I'm not Tim's size or gender. I've been asked; I've said no; I've walked away. If I was chased, I was unaware of it.
The literature put out by the DSA and Burgess all say “Downtown”. But this will be a City-wide ordinance. If the downtown merchants want protection besides the law that's ALREADY on the books, get Burgess to give them more police, period. Don't expect everyone in the City to have to deal with an exceptionally onerous law that will be felt all over but won't be of any benefit except to Pioneer Square merchants (and that value's debatable also). I don't want some unsuspecting homeless person in my neighborhood to get a warrant out on them because they don't understand they're not supposed to do a, b, c, d, and e, when they're not harming anyone by doing it, and when they won't get a notification of the fine or the warrant because…they're homeless!
What a gigantic waste of time this is for everyone.
Erica, could you please amend this post to indicate exactly when on Wednesday this is up for debate, in case people want to show up?
I would point out that we do have the right to panhandle; the Supreme Court has ruled that panhandling is protected under the First Amendment. However, the Court does allow restrictions to be placed when those restrictions meet certain standards. At last week's forum at Seattle U, there was some debate about what those precise standards are. The Law Department thinks the proposed ordinance passes muster; Anita Khandelwal thinks not.
Even if the Court had determined that panhandling was not protected speech, a blanket ban on panhandling would, I think, be unfair. Likewise, certain behaviors such as stalking are clearly not to be allowed in public. So we really do have to find what the right balance is.
This is a good piece, as was Jordan Royer's at Crosscut.
.
I do think that a reasonable case can be made that the ordinance will be of limited effectiveness in what is its ultimate goal: reducing crime and giving Seattle residents the confidence to go out at night. I am very nervous about being in downtown or the U-District late at night, though I am more worried about muggers than panhandlers. But I do think there is a merit to the case that the feeling of an unsafe atmosphere created by aggressive panhandling does open the door to more serious crime. Clearly the proposed ordinance is only a small part of the solution–that is why it is offered in a five part proposal.
Show up at least by 9 AM to get in line to sign up for comment.
For information about the hearing, see here and click on “most current agenda:”
http://www.seattle.gov/council/calendar/default...
Erica, there is no legislative remedy for how you “feel” or how anybody else “feels.” This is the “vibrant” life in the long-sought “urban archipelago” that you and Josh and Savage have been pimping for all these years, and if all Burgess' horses and all Burgess' men can't put your comfort zone together again, then that's just too bloody bad for you.
“Opens the door to more serious crime?” How does that work?
In the draft ordinance, it's claimed that “Residents of and businesses in the greater downtown area in Seattle believe agressive solicitation is a serious problem in their home neighborhoods, and residents of the rest of the city agree…A 2009 survey of residents of the ENTIRE CITY [emphasis mine]found that nearly one-quarter of residents avoid Downtown because of fear for personal safety, an increase from 2007.”
I don't remember being part of either survey. No survey was mailed to me; no telephone message was left for me. I'm a resident of the City. It's entirely possible that Mr. Burgess isn't telling the whole truth, or the DSA isn't telling the whole truth, or both. Perhaps Tim Harris is right.
Burgess' proposals call for more police officers and more police officers walking beats. Enforcement of the non-criminal panhandling provisions involves beggars paying fines. By definition paupers have no money to pay fines so that isn't going to happen, so then there will be warrants and more judicial and policing expense. How exactly is he proposing to pay for this? The City Council appears to be unaware that they are facing a large and growing budget deficit. This afternoon they instructed the Mayor not to mess with the Housing Office. Again, where is all this money going to come from? The City Council is living in a world of unreality at the moment. Perhaps Dively hypnotized them before he skipped out.
Pass this law, hire additional police to enforce the laws (how about sponsoring a levy for that Tim Burgess?) get the problems and perception under control before Seattle loses more business, commerce and tax dollars (to pay for all our other levys) to the Eastside.
Heck. I get panhandled in the Safeway parking lot on Rainier all the time. On Saturday, I had a guy come up to me as I was getting out of my car and said “I'm gonna drink this beer first.” I thought “…before what?”, got back in my car and drove to the PCC where I spent more on the few things I needed. Safeway lost a customer, and I did not feel safe at all. Panhandling and public drunks are a problem in many parts of the city.
I should say that, despite my tall, broad shouldered, white maleness, I have felt threatened in Belltown. But only in the middle of the night.
As an insomniac who sometimes just gives up and goes to work at 3-4 am, I've had a guy who seemed hopped up on meth or something jam his fingers into two inches of unrolled drivers' side window while screaming for money. He withdrew his fingers when I said I was rolling up the window now. I waited until he was a block away before getting out and scurrying the ten feet to the Real Change doorway. Another night, I remained parked in a spot facing the Crocodile while waiting out a guy who was howling in rage while kicking the crap out of a metal Stranger box. If one wants to see the violent misery and despair of the wretched of the earth, Belltown at 4 am is in excellent choice for an excursion.
More policing will keep us safer, but it won't solve the underlying issues. Other pieces of the Safer Streets Initiative deal with these problems, and for the most part, these are reasonable. I admired Royer's Crosscut editorial as well, and think he dealt with this much better than I.
You have, however, inspired me to even deeper exegesis of the meaning of immediately.
http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/site/ar...
I've lived downtown for 9 years. I'm a single physically disabled woman who walks everywhere, daytime and sometimes evening. Yes, I'll tolerate solicitors, people begging for food or money in the middle of a massive economic crisis. I'm not going to parse-out if they really need it or not. Can help, can ignore, can say no. And If someone were to run after me (hasn't happened, but if it did) there are already serious laws in place for the police to enforce. This prestige-driven ordinance is a dragnet, of sorts. It will push-out visibly poor, cater to fortunate visitors and unlikely condo buyers – and confuse legitimate solicitation and real need with 'bad guys' in the eyes of the law. The social services offered-up to soft sell it? Well, they don't exist now. Humanity FAIL.
Revel
I've lived downtown for 9 years. I'm a single physically disabled woman who walks everywhere, daytime and sometimes evening. Yes, I'll tolerate solicitors, people begging for food or money in the middle of a massive economic crisis. I'm not going to parse-out if they really need it or not. Can help, can ignore, can say no. And If someone were to run after me (hasn't happened, but if it did) there are already serious laws in place for the police to enforce. This prestige-driven ordinance is a dragnet, of sorts. It will push-out visibly poor, cater to fortunate visitors and unlikely condo buyers – and confuse legitimate solicitation and real need with 'bad guys' in the eyes of the law. The social services Burgess offers-up to soft sell it? Well, they don't exist now. Humanity FAIL.
How will this law stop pan handling? In reading the comments and in my own experiences working on lower Queen Anne, I have never seen a Police Officer around that would have prevented me from being pan handled. Oh- and this law does not fix drunks in Belltown.
I've been making the girl scout argument for weeks now, and it's clearly covered by the law. Burgess's proposal defines all solicitation within 15 feet of an ATM, etc as aggressive. There is no need for actual aggression. The location covers it.
The ordinance is quite short and worth reading if you want to have an opinion. Or report on the issue.
Also, burgess's office has confirmed in writing that girlscouts near ATMs are covered by the ordinance. Ask them.
Manifestations of addiction and mental health pose real and imagined safety issues. Legislation that appears to ensure safety is lauded as decisive, concrete and effective. Since the 80's the cumulative impact of individual legislation has ushered in massive incarceration. There are 3 times as many people in the criminal justice system now than 30 years ago. This legistation has resulted in more police, more prisons and jails, more correctional officers, more corporation contracts to jails and prison, and to make the medicine go down, more social services to deal with people who come out sicker than when they went in. Billions and billions of dollars. For all the legislation, people still do not feel safe.
This country has a very expensive safety addiction. Maybe we need treatment instead of legislation so that we can get to the historic root of why Americans have so much trouble feeling safe.
Since there are already laws against these behaviors (aggressive panhandling, assault, stalking, etc), I do not believe that Mr. Burgess' aggressive panhandling rules will make a noticible difference. I do approve of additional foot/bike patrols for enforcement and if that were what he was proposing I would back him up. But if this proposal isn't making things better, it feels as though it is just political grandstanding and it fans the flames of ignorance and hatred such as can be found even in the comments on Publicola, let alone at the P-I here: http://www.seattlepi.com/soundoff/comment.asp?a... .
Unfortunately for my sense of humor, it does look to me like Burgess's latest draft (released yesterday) may remove the Girl Scout Issue. It changes the piece saying that all solicitation near ATMs, etc. is *by definition* aggressive and instead limits such solicitation only “when the conduct would make a reasonable person fearful or feel compelled to give money or another item of value”
At first thought, this seems to transform the ordinance for an offensive & likely illegal piece of ridiculousness into a do-nothing proposal that makes illegal things that are already illegal in order to pump up Mr. Burgess's law-and-order credentials. Still absurd, you're still crazy to be for it, but just plain nonsense.
In short, reductio-ad-GirlScoutum appears to have worked!
Burgess is running for Mayor. Already.
I don't see how this legislation by itself changes anything. Burgess can't force SPD to do more foot/bike patrols with existing officers, and I can't imagine that more cops are automatically going to mean more foot/bike patrols, given SPD's historic resistance to getting out of their cars. I have seen people on the streets who made me feel unsafe, but they weren't panhandling and nothing in this ordinance would make me feel safer. Yet the possibilities for selective enforcement contained in phrases like “reasonable person” are so high…I just don't see the value in this.
I agree: this idea had zero *value* from the day it was proposed to the day it gets struck down in court. However, in its current form, it seems it has zero impact as well. Which is a positive development, and I think we owe the girlscouts a bit for this.
How to stop panhandling:
Make giving money to panhandlers the crime. Put up signs, and enforce.
If nobody gives 'em money, they'll stop real quick. Get people to funnel their money into programs and shelters that actually help the homeless rather than money that could fuel their drug/alcohol.
If I want to give beer money to a homeless person, that is my right (and one of the better panhandling signs I've seen on the Ave actually read “Why lie? It's for beer.”)
Is Stockholm in 'Merica? Nope! Not real! HA!
This is classic Seattle. Lots of impassioned discussion about a law that will never be enforced. It isn't as big of a waste of time as the ban the circus debate but it is getting close
I agree–this only looks at a tiny portion of the problem. There are many elements that go into making Seattle's city streets feel less safe–vacant retail, stalled development sites, commercial dead-zones, homelessness, poor lighting–none of which are addressed by this proposal. Seattle needs to learn how to say “no” to panhandlers and “yes” to innovative ways of activating our streets. Eyes on the street create civility, not laws.
I am a woman of average size who works downtown every day. I often walk downtown ALONE, sometimes quite late, and I have quite literally NEVER been chased or threatened when telling a solicitor or panhandler no. As a mother of 2 young sons I feel no hesitation bringing my kids downtown, with or without my husband. I don't buy that being chased or menaced is a daily occurrence for Erica or anyone else in the least. And besides, those activities are already illegal. Call the police if it is happening to you, don't lobby the city council for a law that impacts many other, perfectly non-threatening individuals.
One more reason why publicola is about as mentally nutritious as a pepsicola. deliberately uptight, post-conservative, and tries to outsnark the strangler.