I am on the fence on this one. There is a clear difference between aggressive behavior that is nearly criminal and simply asking for a hand out. Burgess is out of touch but so are those who think that panhandlers can behave how ever they want to simply because of their status.

So much for the magical 10 year plan to end homelessness in Seattle

Will, are you the new hyphenate? Now that Spangenthal-Lee is gone?

I spent eight years in Seattle and was never aggressively panhandled; but I still vividly recall the guy in the Chicago El station who got in my face, and my several other friends' faces, demanding to know what college we went to (we were near DePaul) - basically accusing us of being spoiled brat students who had money to spare. (Not true - we were all working near minimum wage jobs in retail.) This was in 1995. THAT is aggressive panhandling.

As a tax payer and a contributing member of society I should be able to walk down the street in peace. I am not sympathetic to panhandlers, especially the scumbag street kids who think they are living a romantic lifestyle. Well at least up until the point they have to suck dick for their next hit.

I support Burgess 100%.

Are laws further penalizing aggressive panhandling a reasonable response to a legitimate concern?

Ab so fucking lutlely

Burgess is spot on correct.

Cato @1 that behavior isn't near criminal. It flat out is. As a commuter, how do I know whether the guy who approaches my stopped vehicle at an off ramp is merely going to pound on my window demanding change, or instead, try to break my window, or force open my door in an attempt to car jack me? California has an epidemic of aggressive forced entry car jackings, and many have led to the deaths of innocent motorists.

As a law abiding citizen, at what point can I pull a gun on these people to protect my safety? Am I allowed to err on the side of caution and pull my gun if they simply approach? I know I won't have time to pull a gun on them if I delay and wait for them to jump into my car... better be safe than sorry and have it at the ready as they approach...

Right?

Something to consider...

They already have laws like that in Santa Monica. Still get hassled though.

Man, RC, you just showed what a paranoid flat out pussy you are. Seriously? You want to pull a gun on someone knocking on your window? Seriously?

You know how some people make the case that guns ELEVATE tensions in confrontations like this? This is the proof.

Reality Check: You probably should just stay in your house altogether, to avoid the drove of dangers that await you just past your door. But then again, what's that tired old statistic about 99.9999999% of fatal accidents happening in the home? We're just not safe anywhere, not no where: what's a guy to do who only want to live in fear nowadays?

Used to be that you couldn't swing a cat in the U district without hitting a surly, panhandling teen--usually sporting about $1,000 worth of doc martens, tattoos and piercings. I used to beg shopowners to turn a hose on them; they made my walk to and from work a chore every day with their aggressive begging. If you're that poor that you need a handout, surely you don't have the scratch to buy a $120 pair of boots.

Far from it Matty

Paranoid? Not at all. I am asking a hypothetical question. At what point are my rights to protecting my self and property violated? Do I need to wait for a violation to occur? Do I need to anticipate it escalating?

As a second hypothetical question... how am I supposed to differentiate from someone trying to bum a dollar from me and someone who is about to steal my car? How do you do it? Do you just wait until you are lying bloody on the street after getting ripped out of your vehicle? Are you allowed to indicate your desire to not have them come within 10 feet of your vehicle if you feel threatened? Who gets to decide whether I have the right to proactively get ready for a confrontation they didn't choose to be in?

Please answer me that genius.

@9 Its a lifestyle choice for many of these parasites.

I lived in New York City in the mid 90s and for my first year or so every time I rode the subway at least one panhandler would come walking through asking for change. They tended to not be aggressive but it turned out that they were breaking a NYC law on not panhandling to captive audiences (people in line, people on a bus, etc.). When Rudy Giuliani first become major, one of his first moves was to enforce the existing panhandling laws and almost overnight all subway panhandlers were gone, as were squeegee panhandlers who would clean your windshield unasked at a traffic light and then hit you up for change. The city almost overnight became a nicer place to live in and exist. Prior to change I had thought I was immune to any ill effects of life with panhandlers and I held all the normal very liberal views on the issue, but I did not know how much better daily life - just getting back and forth to work - could be without constantly being hit up for money. This one move made Giuliani very popular, by the way.

Are we sure this "panhandler" wasn't someone who objected to his car being in the middle of a crosswalk, and hadn't had time to wear a suit and tie like him?

Pics or it didn't happen.

(and technically I'm a hyphenate too)

@ 10 - do you drive with your car unlocked? Start locking it. Keep your window rolled up - you have climate control, right? Worried that someone will attack you? How often does that happen in crowded places in the daytime? Try not walking around by yourself at night in dangerous areas.

Common sense precautions render your hypothetical questions moot. You have no right to a 10 foot buffer around you or your car in public, and you're a damn fool if you want to risk blood over your car. You have insurance, right? Don't leave irreplaceable valuables in it.

Questions answered, and your paranoia is still on display.

What is the city not doing that's forcing folks to the streets to panhandle?

I find it ironic that republicans are typically very aggressive against panhandling (e.g., Giuliani in NYC), yet their primary philosophy is that people should essentially make money by begging for it. They're against social services and "hand-outs," but they're all for charities, which is really just people begging for hand-outs. It's a big contradiction, but with the GOP, what else is new?

Let's admit that we're not doing much for the folks on the street.

I'm really, really sick of this. Are we doing *enough*? Obviously not. Will we ever do *enough*? Probably not. But we still do a whole hell of a fucking lot. Picking up the pieces of broken lives is expensive and very frequently doesn't work. We (as in city government and non-profits) still spend a lot of money every year trying.

One reason (among many) I stopped giving to panhandlers is that they're simply not going to starve to death. What kills chronically homeless people is usually the cumulative effects of their predicament, and one dollar ain't going to shit about that.

How about aggressive charity organization drones? They get in my face far more than panhandlers ever do.

@16 - a lot of people don't do air conditioning here in the summer, even in their cars.

yeah, @20 is right, and I feel sorry for the college kids who do that for a job, but it is annoying.

I don' think being anti panhandling makes you conservative.

Also, I do truly feel for the mentally ill homeless. They are victims of the system, and they need to be taken care of cause the cannot do it themselves. The rest of the homeless? Use the services provided by the city and get out of my face.

And the addicts can be set on fire for all I care.

@ 22, no shit. I lived there for a long time. Remember?

I love this post, and am so glad we finally have a thoughtful, clever Will on Slog.

Asskissing aside, the (legitimately unenforced) panhandling laws we now have can't be made effective by adding additional (to-be-legitimately-unenforced) provisions.

Burgess knows this. He knows we have jails already full to bursting with people whose chief offense is being mentally ill, advancedly alcoholic, cold and wet, or just weed-dealing. Overtaxed cops are forced to triage whom to release, cite or haul in among these "quality-of-life" offenders who, if they go to jail, emerge more likely to reoffend thanks to what happens there.

Because of absurdly unnecessary overcrowding with just these types of offenders already, budget-strapped prosecutors and judges wind up cutting most new cases loose. The burden on the public purse is tremendous for what's little more than a sop to our delicate sensibilities.

Burgess is knowingly pandering to solidify his law-and-order constituency and help remove Licata. He'll ride roughshod over whichever yutz wins the mayoralty. He wants Jessie for his loyal ally.

Legalize pot, tax it locally, and use part of the income to re-fund the (demonstrably cheaper than jailing) mental health, cheap housing, and alcoholism/addiction services lost in recent decades.

Problem not solved overnight, obvs., but it could prevent the likes of Burgess and Israel from easily advancing their careers Giuliani style.

Shouldn't any discussion of panhandling bring up the Seattle dipshits that give them money? Why are the panhandlers out there anyway? Perhaps because it pays.

That said I think the 'aggressive panhandling' problem seems really overblown to me. Are people with a very low tolerance threshold deliberately confusing annoying with aggressive? I guess I can see where women and older people might provide more of a target than young men or might have a lower threshold for defining aggressive behaviour. But in my experience panhandlers in Seattle are rarely if ever aggressive (although plenty annoying). Seems kind of like existing laws are more than adequate for addressing aggressive behaviour.

Typical @16 I expected nothing less than a complete dodging of my question.

A very pussy typical liberal answer. Don't anticipate being assaulted. Just bitch and moan after the fact. Count on the police to defend you, and that laws on the books will keep you safe and sound in your car.

Sorry Matty... your answer is completely pathetic. You failed to answer my question honestly.

I'll ask it again. How do you anticipate a crime that might be about to occur? Do you simply lock your car door and hope they won't smash your window? Does a motorist have a right to not be approached while in a confined limited defensible space? Why do I have to tolerate someone approaching my vehicle when I want nothing to do with the situation?

Touchy feely aside, just tell me how a bum has a greater right to approach my vehicle and squeegee it or knock on the glass of my property, compared with me flashing a gun to indicate I have a way to defend myself if they foolishly escalate the situation? Do I have a right to have a gun at the ready in case the worst case scenario happens? Do I?

You may not like my response, but do I have a right to do that? IS that right a greater right to defend my property against unwanted intrusion, more protected than a bum's right to approach me in a confined situation?

Come on Matty I know you can do it! I have faith!

@27,

Seattle panhandlers are pussies compared to panhandlers in San Francisco. Those mofos will try to trip you if you don't give them money.

And, to my knowledge, San Francisco spends more on services for the homeless. It's not just lack of services that's the problem, as Mr. Kelley-Kamp implies. It's also a different culture of panhandling, which is the result of San Franciscans' historic permissiveness of shitty behavior.

@27 Do I have a right to not be "annoyed" (let's swap that cute little term with "approached in a confined situation")?

It is more than annoying. It is a special situation that is highly defenseless. Hence many jurisdictions enacting legislation to give special protected status to innocent citizens who want no part of being approached or "annoyoed".

Panhandlers need to be stopped in all cases. Noone has a right in this day and age of social services, to harass anyone for money. And I use harass very loosely. including all requests for money in public, by any stranger for any reason. Maybe if we just enacted a complete ban on all requests for money in the public space, we'd completely end this BS.

Enough is enough. Let's stop dancing around the obvious solutions, and quit masking the problem with touchy feely excuses and terms.

I support charities and I fully support public help for people who have fallen through the cracks. There needs to be a minimum in this country through which no one should have to pass on their way to down-and-out. Even those who chose their own demise via booze or heroin (or whatever) need our help - because a life of hopelessness is worse than death. Worse for them. Worse for us.

BUT...people begging on the streets cheapens and demoralizes life in a city. Panhandlers have ruined San Francisco. SF has lost a lot of tourist revenue, and conventions no longer want to book there because of its unpleasant, aggressive panhandlers. Know what else? It coarsens people to have to endure that day in and day out. I don't want to live in a place where you simply step over people lying in the gutter because you've become accustomed to it. Nor do I want to ignore it by driving by it in my BMW (which people will start doing if it is allowed to continue).

I think I heard somewhere recently that a huge amount of the homeless are women and children. Of course, I've seen a few women panhandling, but I wonder why we haven't seen their numbers represented among the spare changers? Maybe its easier - if receiving social services is ever easier - for women and children to receive services than it is for single men.

Lastly, there have been points in my life in which I've been very poor, even homeless. But thank goodness I never had to spare change. That seems to me the ultimate humiliation. I wonder what happens to someone who passes that barrier that one must pass in order to beg for existence (or for cigarettes, for booze, or for some sort of dope). What else dies inside when that happens.

I feel bad for the homeless, but I walk 10 blocks to work and I'm usually hit upon 3 or 4 times on that walk. Yesterday, a panhandler chased me down the sidewalk after I said no to him 3 times. This is unacceptable.

@27 totally. If it didn't make money, people wouldn't do it.

I really don't see how layering a new law that won't be enforced, on top of an old law that isn't enforced, will stop "aggressive panhandling" OR do what I think it is people really want, which is to make panhandling disappear forever.

Publicola did a little thing on the Downtown Seattle Association survey of panhandlers, based on that it sounds like there are maybe 30 or so known, chronic panhandlers in the downtown area. It's probably like 100 if we look at the whole city (shot in the dark guess). This seems like a small enough problem that if we wanted to *actually do something about it,* we could, right?

The city of Toronto ran a pilot project a bit ago where community workers basically contacted every panhandler in the city and set them up with what they needed, whether it was housing, rehab, job training, or whatever. More info here: http://www.toronto.ca/housing/pilot.htm

It's an interesting program. Might work better than pretending we're going to arrest people and then not actually doing it.

@30 just trying to clarify here: apparently you would like legislation that would permit you to open fire on anyone who 'approaches' you with the intent to panhandle? Seems entirely reasonable but there is that small problem as to how to ascertain intent. Can we settle on shabby clothing being sufficient to earn a couple of rounds? Dark skin? Or may it would have to be shabby clothing combined with dark skin?

@34 Not at all. I have no right to "open fire" on anyone who "approaches" my vehicle.

You had your answer in my reply @28 when I said "compared with me flashing a gun to indicate I have a way to defend myself if they foolishly escalate the situation? Do I have a right to have a gun at the ready in case the worst case scenario happens? Do I?"

So to clarify for you read above. I asked if I had a right to have my gun visible and at the ready. Because there is no way I would have time to go dig it out if I was suddenly attacked, and caught surprised.

Ascertaining intent is the exact question I was trying to ask Matty from Denver. How DO you ascertain intent? This is part of the exact logic used by jurisdictions giving special rights to the area around a motorists vehicle when occupied and stopped in traffic. Motorists are very vulnerable.

Your attempts at being snarky Rhizome fail miserably. You need to try painting me as radical in some fashion to attempt discrediting me. However the questions posed early stand.

Nice attempt. Poor execution though. I'll pose the very same questions from @28 to you Rhizome. Answer them. I dare you. Don't dance and weave and try casting more aspersions.

Are you a pussy liberal too?

Wow, RC, belittling liberals! Moderates who aren't fringy hard right jerkoffs do that all the time!

Hmmm... so knocking over your strawmen = "avoiding the question?" That's some fantasy world you live in. Let me make it clear - you're not going to be the victim of a crime if you take precautions against it. Therefore you never encounter a situation where you're going to be a victim of a crime. I know - I've lived 39 years without ever being victimized except in situations where I begged it. (Once walking by the rather obvious gang near my high school, another when some jerk on the street mouthed off to me and I mouthed off back rather than just walking on. Both resulted in minor assault, but could have ended up with someone dead if I had a gun.) So spare me your unrealistic hypotheticals, okay? I know how to recognize danger, and if you keep your eyes open when you're out and about you will to.

As to your "rights..." If you can find me where in either the US or Washington constitutions the right not to deal with people in public, then no, you don't have a right not to have someone knock on your window. You don't have the right to pull a gun on them if they do, and you're a paranoid fuck if you feel like you have to if that's all that they're doing. BTW, has anyone EVER knocked on your window like that? It never happened to me in eight years of living and working in downtown Seattle.

It's telling that you want to ban something that qualifies as free assembly under the First Amendment and claim that the homeless don't have a right to it. Um, no. If they sparechange you, either lie and say you don't have any, or just say no. I thought you conservatives always hated unneccesary laws...

I absolutely agree that we should have the right to arrest/ban/shoot people for making us uncomfortable. Then I will finally have recourse against blue-rinse women wafting floral perfumes. And folks talking loudly on their cell phones while I’m trapped in line. And compulsive pen-twiddlers…

That's right we should simply kill panhandlers on the spot. Just blow their brains out right on the street for all to see.

@36

Let me make it clear - you're not going to be the victim of a crime if you take precautions against it.

That's some statement. So basically, anyone who is a victim of a crime was asking for it -- or at the very least guilty of not taking precautions?

@ 40 - Perhaps I overstated. Let me rephrase - your chances of being a victim of a crime are a lot lower when you take precautions than when you don't. Are you perfectly safe? Of course not. Will the hypotheticals being posed by RC happen to you in spite of these precautions? Maybe, but the odds against it are astronomical.

I agree with a lot of what #37 says, but...(the "but" part not directed at you, 37)

The tone of this argument is really naive. Panhandlers are all different people, each with their deal, and their own hustle. It may be annoying, but we've all got the same rights. Deal with situations and individuals accordingly. Making laws against "them" is a weird, and dehumanizing way to look at it.

If the mayor wants to cops want to start enforcing "quality of life" crimes to drive them out, then fess up to it, and ditch this we're-gonna-annoy-you-and-maybe-you'll-clean-up-your-act bullshit. If Burgess is just fishing for popularity— it'll probably work—but he's wasting everyone's time and money, except his own. Plus, he sounds like a total pussy.

#36 - Glad you've managed to stay safe, but unfortunate shit really does happen for no reason, no matter how streetwise you think you are.

Matt from Denver, ignore my last paragraph, you addressed that while I was typing; in the context of arguing with RC, I don't know why I even bothered to make light of it.

@ 43, no worries.

David @13 - I don't agree that defending panhandling constitutes "the normal very liberal views on the issue" -- in fact, that many people think that the do-nothing approach is liberal shows how conservative liberals have gotten. A liberal approach would be to increase training and resources for mental health and substance abuse outreach and treatment programs, more spending on social services, job training, and sustained programs for the homeless. Universal healthcare, rent control, affordable housing. Those are liberal ideas. Just shrugging and saying, "I've never felt threatened" or "it doesn't bother me" is not a liberal response, it's an apathetic one that denies that the real hardship the homeless and panhandlers face can't be addressed or alleviated by panhandling.

Speaking as a non-Seattle-resident: What is the current law? Nobody's actually mentioned it.

And... I tend to think of myself as a very socioeconomically liberal, compassionate person. I'm also a woman in her 20s who enjoys traveling alone. This is from the original linked article:

"The Burgess proposal bans panhandling near ATMs and cars, at street intersections and freeway onramps and anytime between the hours of dusk and dawn."

That... sounds like common sense to me. Of course you don't want people panhandling near ATMs or approaching cars or pedestrians after dark. That's reasonable. Those rules that encourage safety for both parties--both the person getting hit up for money and the panhandler who is hoping not to get maced or punched or shot or the cops called on them.

I get that there is a whole different side to the story regarding the accessibility and success of services, but when you boil the interaction down to one person going about their day and a second person panhandling... what exactly is the problem with these safety measures?

(Also: the Atlanta homeless that I encounter are much less aggressive that their Seattle counterparts. However, they also tend to be older and worse-off-looking than their Seattle counterparts. I am wholly unqualified to comment on implications of this observation.)

@46 well what seems just a little unreasonable, if not blatantly unconstitutional, about the proposed law is that real basically panhandling is asking people for money. That's it. Obstructing traffic may well be aggressive but I'm pretty sure that is already illegal. Banning people from asking for money seems to be about as clear cut a case as you can get of violating the right to free speech.

@36 You did it again Matty

Only this time you continually assert your own straw man arguments.

It is cute how you keep trying to reframe the scenario to fit into your narrowly defined perceptions.

Unfortunately as others have pointed out to you already, we don't live in a squishy touchy feel good nirvana. As others have also noted, homeless folks come in many flavors, as do druggies, and psychotics.

Yes Matty I am much more moderate than you. I choose to look at the world in a realistic fashion that takes my safety into consideration foremost. Self preservation is sorta at the top of my little proverbial list.

I won't knock the topic further off course by trying to reason with you. Your prejudices and mischaracterizations are on display for all to see. You know damn well that the world doesn't always go perfectly spiffy even when taking in all the precautions you espouse.

If we completely ban all panhandling activities in the public space, it will further reduce the likelihood of me getting hassled. It will further reduce the odds of joe random from wanting to take it further in any fashion. I'm all about statistics too Matty... If we reduce almost all panhandling, and remove the top 50 worst from the equation it is a WIN WIN for everyone involved.

And Yes Matty I have had people either knock on my window, whip out a squeegee, or bang on the side of my vehicle in multiple different states, including Seattle. Twice in the past 3 years I've had it done to me in Seattle. Once at 45th exit ramp, and once after exiting I 5 onto Cherry waiting for the light after the offramp under the bridge. One of those times they took me by complete surprise as I glanced down at my radio.

You are a complete fucking moron if you don't think I have rights to not have a bum knock on my window. They have no right to touch my private property without my consent. The right for them to "assemble" has nothing to do with approaching vehicles in a confined situation in traffic. That has been a huge part of the impetus for similar laws to this. And yes Matty, I DO have a right to pull a gun if I feel threatened by an approaching stranger who I can articulate appeared to be advancing towards me or my family. I am not required to keep said weapon hidden. Don't worry, though... I'm not going to do that. The mere appearance of me holding my hand behind my back in my waistband has turned more than one person back around when they started approaching. They chose wisely not to continue approaching after being warned to stay back. However law abiding citizens should not have to deal with unknown people approaching motorists in traffic. That is exactly why car jackings became so popular in California.

No Matty I'm no hard line conservative. Enact this strict law now IMO. Ohhh... and do Colorado a favor. Get your fucking whiny liberal ass out of that state. Whack job enviro liberals have really ruined what used to be a great state for the outdoors, and western way of life. I'm sure you've seen the bumper stickers right? ;)
.

Reality and Rotten are full of shit. So is Burgess; Gloomy Gus gets it -- he's shoring up his lawnorder bona-fides. Banging on your car windows? That's already illegal. And it doesn't happen.

What we're really talking about here is "should imaginary aggressive panhandling be illegal?" All these terrifically threatening episodes that Reality Check imagines while he's masturbating next to his police scanner are BULLSHIT. Don't happen; already illegal. Four words, that's all you need to know.

What this is really about is a desire by cruise ship companies that their passengers never see anything unpleasant or dirty or weird. What Burgess's controllers want is to CLEAR THE STREETS: define homelessness as a crime, put panhandlers in jail (he's aggressive, he spoke to me), and make the streets safe for obese morons in brand-new "Sleepless In Seattle" sweatshirts to drink their 80-ounce milkshakes without being disturbed by any unapproved, unlicensed city life.

RC, it's not very interesting or valid to project the sins you commit onto me. But it is sad that your grasp of what's legal, and what rights you actually have, is as tenuous your grasp on reality.

@47 There are already laws about how people can be solicited--everything from no-call-lists to truth-in-advertising laws. It is possible that ALL laws restricting solicitation are First Amendment violations, actually--have telemarketers ever challenged the no-call-list as a First Amendment violation? (I ask this seriously, not rhetorically, if anybody happens to know.)

I admit ignorance on the intersection of solicitation laws and free speech rights, but if nothing else, there is certainly precedent.

@ 51, a lot of those kinds of anti-soliciting laws are in regard to privacy in the home. Being out in public, even in a car, is another matter. No one has the right to not be approached in public. And despite what mouth breathing hard right guys like RC believe, touching your car isn't threatening your property.

Keep in mind, there is such a thing as aggressive panhandling that needs to be addressed when it happens. For an example of what constitutes aggressive panhandling, see my post @ 3. If they follow you, verbally abuse you, or the like, that's different. If they actually try to damage your car, that's also different. Fnarf says it's already illegal; if true it should be left at that.

@51 actually I would not be surprised if the courts have seen the matter as you describe. I know Giuliani got away with murder and there are pretty clearly unconstitutional panhandling bans in other cities. I would say this is entirely bogus however. An individual who is not representing a business or organization should not come under any anti-solicitation law. I would not be surprised if courts have been friendly to such a dubious interpretation however. I'm not aware of what has gone on elsewhere in terms of challenges to anti-panhandling laws.

@31: Bauhaus I wrote: "thank goodness I never had to spare change. That seems to me the ultimate humiliation. I wonder what happens to someone who passes that barrier that one must pass in order to beg for existence (or for cigarettes, for booze, or for some sort of dope)."

I'm not convinced that those who are begging are at the bottom. Don't you suppose that they're the ones who are less willing to jump through other hoops for assistance? Really -- we have like 3,000 people living on the streets here, right? How many of them are panhandling? A tiny fraction of that.

Panhandling is a business, and those who give money to panhandlers make that business profitable. If they really want to help, they should instead put their donations into programs that help keep people off the streets in the first place. Handing money to someone on the street is an easy way for people to make themselves feel like they're helping other people. In reality, they're providing a tiny amount of assistance to a tiny fraction of people who need assistance, and they're providing it specifically to the ones who are being a pain in the ass.

If Burgess wants to reduce panhandling, he should go talk to the suckers who make panhandling profitable. Why not find out how much it pays, how the people doing it really live (compared to, say, someone working a shitty job for minimum wage and living by the shitty rules placed on them by shelters), and what fraction of those people living on the streets are engaged in panhandling, then publicize that information until people use their heads and quit enabling this behavior that almost all of us would like to see end?

@ 51, Fnarf at @49 nailed it. It’s not really about safety, it’s about what makes people squirm. Apparently many people think it’s their god-given right to go through life without seeing someone who makes them feel a little uncomfortable, nervous, irritated, etc. Businesses that cater to tourists are often vociferous supporters of such laws, even when shown there has been no correlation between the number of panhandlers and violent crime in their neighborhoods. Beneath all the chest-pounding and professions of fear, it seems to boil down to this: you are unsightly.

We aren’t talking about general solicitation laws here: we are talking about policies developed with a specific class of people in mind. This habit of targeting and penalizing people within a specific demographic makes me far more nervous than being asked for a quarter.

Ah, okay, thanks Matt. In terms of it being a home-privacy-versus-first-amendment question, as opposed to solicitation-versus-first-amendment, that makes sense.

I do have two questions of fact, if anybody happens to know the answers:

First. In violent run-ins between panhandlers and those being asked for money, who tends to come out worse for wear? I know that this is a hugely problematic question, in the difficulty of collecting data on people who lack access to healthcare and sympathetic police services, but I would be unsurprised if panhandlers get maced/punched/attacked/harassed way more often than people who get asked for money.

Second. Have any homeless advocacy groups done any research on what the actual cost to panhandlers would be under the new rules? Obviously this is just a tiny part of the equation; human dignity and rights in public and everything else enter into it too, and I don't want to diminish that. But in terms of exactly how the quarters add up? As I said, I'm a sympathetic woman in her 20s and I'm willing to give a panhandler money if asked, but not after dark and not from my car; my friends have the same self-imposed rule. I hope those reading this will understand that this is a reflection of my interest in my safety, not as a display of callousness or classism. All that said. Does the amount of money collectively brought in by panhandling drop dramatically when you eliminate money collected from cars, after dark, et cetera?

What I'm getting at is: would these laws make it safer to panhandle?

What I'm NOT getting at is, "These laws would make it safer to panhandle." I don't know, but I'd like to know, because I'm not sure that the safety of panhandlers has been discussed in this thread, where the diminishing-returns line falls between "getting money after dark" and "getting maced by a spooked woman or punched by a drunk dude." What do you guys think on that front?

@56, from what I understand, these rules would permit the arrest of people panhandling under these circumstances. I don’t think arresting someone who hasn’t committed an actual crime against another person is really in his/her best interest. It’s in the same vein as the no-sitting ordinances: it’s less about stopping behaviors and more about being able to selectively target individuals.

I agree with the folks who promote donating to social service organizations over giving money to panhandlers. Seattle is such a passive-aggressive city--and I say this as someone who grew up here--that I'm not surprised at the increasing amount of panhandlers we've got. More and more folks seem to have just turned it into a business of sorts. We need to do more to take care of the mentally ill on the streets for certain, but begging for change is not a solution for that. And as for those who aren't mentally ill, I have yet to hear any success stories about how panhandling helped get anyone off the streets.

If you're truly hungry and ask me for a sandwich I might consider buying you one depending on circumstances and my mood, but I'm not about to pop over to the nearest cash machine and get you out a twenty (as I've been asked to do a few times).

@60, I agree, there is an element of freedom to it. Some people who ask for change might want to use it for alcohol or drugs (note: like a number of non-panhandlers tend to spend their cash), but sometimes you just want something other than the same tuna sandwich or soup the shelter serves.

I've heard the coupon idea floating about before, but on a quick search, I didn't find much information on its effectiveness. It has been done and I'd be curious to see the stats.

The classic liberal government solution is to license and regulate panhandlers. Much like Real Change permits its vendors, we could educate the public to only give money to licensed, taxed, regulated panhandlers and order the police to harass unlicensed panhandlers for operating a business without a license.

Then again, I don't see this as much of a problem in the first place. I don't give money to panhandlers. If a panhandler is aggressive, I defend my space and my right to say no. If that doesn't work, I call the non-emergency police phone number and make a report. Usually this solves the problem.

I have noticed more and more people trying to establish begging zones at new intersections lately.

Have you ever noticed that beggers don't panhandle tourists between first and second near the market? I believe the message is pretty clear in that area that this behavior will not be tolerated.

Look, if someone is living on the streets it's because they're mentally ill, a substance abuser, or usually both. That being the case they can't take care of themselves....just look at the way they're living. Round 'em up and make them go through some kind of program. Detox the drug addicts and make them go through rehab. Get the mentally ill people into a facility where they can get counselling and treatment. The ones that can be salvaged can go to half-way houses or group homes until they're ready for supported living arrangements, sheltered work experiences, and outpatient treatment. The ones who'll never be able to care for themselves (never be able to hold a job, hold on to an apartment, go off their meds) should be made wards of the state.

I think NY dealt with it's homeless problem by shipping the mentally ill ones out of state to nursing homes. The ACLU says it's a violation of their rights, but they aren't digging through trash cans for food, they aren't selling themselves for drugs, they're being treated for their mental and physical ailments, and they're in a clean, safe environment. Deinstitutionalization of the chronically mentally ill in the 1960s was one of the worst things that happened to mental health in this country.

@64: yeah fuck all the kids that ran away from abusive homes and found a community of like minded and protective folks, or the women raped by family or spouses who ran for their lives. The Vets abandoned by kith and kin and country who spiralled into even temporary depression and lost jobs, homes, lives? It's all their fault, OBVIOUSLY. The families living in campers or cars, unable , on minimum wage, to be able to afford housing within the city limits?
Detox em! Round em up!

Get them up against the wall....
...That one's a coon!
Who let all this riffraff into the room?!! There's one smoking a joint, and another with spots...- Pink

*facepalm*

NYC still has homeless, yucca -you twatdribbling braindonor, you get your 'facts' from watching 'The Warriors' or listening to Juliani don't you? - the homeless are all the fuck over the subways, parks, doorways, buses, riverside park, the ghost stations**, etc. 8000-10000 was the last count I heard. They might hide better, and the touristy areas might appear 'cleansed' but the homelessness hasn't ended magically by demonizing the mentally ill and addicts. Yes, the hookers were forced into jobs as SBUX baristas, but that's about as much 'improvement' as was actually done.
**= www.forgotten-ny.com/SUBWAYS/lower42nd/l…

@63 what if the panhandlers become non-profit corporations (501c: buskers), and start issuing tax deductible receipts to donors? ;)

@21 FTW - seriously, Will KK, pay attention.

@ 64,

I said we should put them in a program to get them off drugs and off the street, whether they wanted to go or not. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill, LIKE MEMBERS OF MY OWN FAMILY, and can't make decisions for themselves. Even while stable on medications they are not the brightest bulbs on the x-mas tree. They need a guardian pretty much 24/7. According to the UCLA they have the right to go un-medicated....and so they never get help and they can't get off the streets because they can't fucking take care of themselves. So, no, I don't think it's their fault. I blame our shitty (and largely non-existant) mental health care system...and assholes who say keeping somebody off the street is 'cruel'.

I don't like, but don't freak out over the normal Seattle panhandlers. I mostly hate the emotional manipulation. However, I effin hate the more interactive panhandlers I have encountered elsewhere. For for example, in Austin a few weeks ago a friend and I went downtown one evening (my friend is an Austin native) and as we drove around looking for a place to park, I noticed panhandler/bummy types hanging out near/in public metered street spots. I was informed by my buddy that if you use one of these spots, these people expect a "service fee" for the privilege of parking in a free (after 6pm) parking spot. That is harassment and should be illegal.

I have no problem w/ pan-handlers. You have to understand that when it comes to getting a job, the odds are against them. They have to dress to impress, have a phone for the employer to call them back at, & they are competing against clean-cut people w/ solid resumes. Law enforcement's view of "aggressive" is going to be ridiculous; They're going to make stupid arrests because the filthy rich old lady said "That man yelled at me to give him money" when in reality it was nothing more than a "can you spare some change?" This will give wealthy citizens even more of an upper-hand on "cleaning up the trash" as I have heard them say & will continue the cycle of the poor getting poorer.
You want bums off the street? Give them a job when they come into your establishment. When they come in to the restaurant you work for asking if you have any left-over food, hand them a job application & maybe see about getting them a sandwich or something if they fill the app out. Soup kitchens are nice, but jobs pay the rent.

No one has brought up the elementary teacher from Ballard. Last Summer, he was pushed by an aggressive panhandler. The panhandler wasn't even pursuing him. The panhandler was chasing a young female demanding money. When the teacher began calling 911, the panhandler ran after and pushed him. He hit the ground head first. I am not aware whether he recovered from the coma.
Real Change is a marvel. I purchase at least one a day, although publication only occurs once a week. Great exposes, and better investigative reporting then most of our daily and weekly rags in Seattle. BTW, if you have already read it, just pass the buck. Many real change vendors run out of papers, but still don't make ends meet.
BULLSHIT on aggressive panhandling. No one has the right to harass another individual for money. There is a clear difference between the two. It isn't that hard to develop laws that differentiate. For example, pursuing an individual or group after asking for money should constitute harassment.

The street kids that pretend to be homeless are the only ones I've ever had a problem with since moving here. They are the biggest pieces of shit ever and throw their garbage all over the street and heckle tourists and passers-by like crazy. I heard one yell "Seattle hates Jews!" at a group of tourists the other day.

I usually don't mind the homeless or the panhandlers, but I walk back and forth from the Lander Street Link Station to the City Light South Service Center every day, and there are some real creepy homeless down there. They hang out underneath the fourth avenue offramp from the West Seattle viaduct, and they are obnoxious. One of our security guards was assaulted by one of them after she got off her shift because she had made him move off the front steps of the cashier lobby. He hit her in the head with a rock, and she had to go to the hospital. Luckily, he's in jail now, but some of the others are just as bad.

Also, before they moved our parking lot and made it more secure, they would get into the lot, and look for unlocked cars to crash in. People work odd hours at that location, so the parking lot could be creepy at night.

The funny thing is, if you engage them, they're not bad one-on-one, but they like to intimidate - they especially target some of the older women who work there and take the bus home.

But that ramp is going away soon, and westbound Spokane Street is soon to be closed off, so they'll have to find another place to do their thing.

A good rule of thumb is to just never give money to panhandlers. I'm the biggest bleeding heart liberal there is, but the best choice is to write a check to social service organizations (and then THEY can hassle you by phone and mail for the rest of your life!)

I'm sympathetic to the homeless, particularly the mentally ill and addicts who do not have money for treatment (even those with money have to wait weeks to get into rehab in this city), but I'm tempted to think that giving a dollar here and there alleviates the giver's guilt more than it helps the recipient.

Btw, by my previous post I didn't mean to suggest that not giving money directly to panhandlers will make them go away. What I meant to say was that if we funnel our energies and monies into social groups that help addicts, the abused, the unhealthy/sick (the homeless), rather than directly fund those living in dangerous and unhealthy environments, then they'll ultimately—ideally—have better opportunities to get lasting help.

Shortsighted hacks like Burgess are vocalizing the wish to have homeless be invisible. He's not pursuing aggressive panhandling, he's not trying to solve homelessness. no. He's trying to make real what he imagines when he avoids eye contact and says nothing to someone parked on the cold sidewalk asking for change. He wants them locked up, out of sight, out of mind. The effect of ignoring the problem? You make the homeless feel insubstantial; and so they become just that. The kids known as the Ave Rats (yes , there are fakers and wannabes, but they are no more than 20% of the under 18 population) often complain they feel invisible. Half the time they raise hell, it's to get attention, just to feel human, to regain a little reality again.

What mental health issues are literally caused by this 'willing them to be invisible'? Anyone know? Making them pariahs, casting them as worse than Huck Finn, the boy who must not be acknowleged? That's a potent banishment. Might as well paint a red H on them.
Imagine if suddenly it came down on your life...

Me? If I'm broke too, I say so. I don't ignore them. I make eye contact and sometimes quote 'A Change Is Going To Come': "sorry brother but I'm not able". If able, I don't give cash (unless they have something of value to sell like paintings or RealChange).
Instead, I offer to buy them dinner. (A simple cheap thing, if you're near Dick's). Maybe for some it alleviates guilt, and maybe for some it makes sure that the money isn't used 'for booze and crack', but for me, I like just sharing a meal. It's the proverbial breaking of bread, and it's powerfully magic healing in helping broke folks feel human again... which is one thing homeless lack, one helpful tonic, that not enough people address.

Besides, if we're going to get rid of aggressive people taking up sidewalk space/looking for money, the law better also address those damn paid petitioners.

@65: The panhandlers here are much more aggressive than in New York -- I'm not sure about the difference in numbers, but the culture of begging is much different. As per @29, SF is the one of only cities I've been to where there's more assertive panhandlers.

It's not okay to harass strangers on the street. It's not ok when the ASPCA does it, it's not ok when a panhandler does it. If I say "no" then move along.

I have noticed a recent increase in the number of panhandlers approaching my car from the LEFT-- i.e. out in traffic.

There are also several gentlemen I regularly pass on my morning commute who step off the right-hand curb and into the street.

I can only assume that people are ponying up to these guys, or they wouldn't do it. But know that if you run over someone's foot who was clearly visible in the road you will be liable in court! Actually, pursuit of free pain meds might and a decent settlement might be sending more savvy street-folk into the roadway. Not a bad strategy if I lose my job for spending too many hours on the Slog.

#78 - This place is crawling with 40-something "Vietnam vets" as well.

Whenever I am in Belltown, I give money to the homeless. I like to think that this encourages them to stay in Belltown, and out of where I live and work and play.

Why is the word "pussy" used so much in these comments? I thought this was a liberal rag.

What, Liberals can't like pussy? Don't let Dan scare you, there are plenty of straights on here as well (and not to mention lesbians!) ;)

Perhaps if you guys really like it, you shouldn't use it as a derogatory term.