So, in other words, it still makes it illegal for girl scouts.

as in "makes a reasonable person fearful or feel compelled to give money or another item of value"

cause when they're there I sure feel compelled to give them money for thin mints ...

I wish somebody would tell me why soliciting anybody while they're at an ATM should be allowed.

It seems like since nobody can come up with an argument for why panhandling at ATMs is OK, they instead want to talk about how this particular law is less than perfect. Like if it fails to eliminate 100% of panhandling at ATMs we shouldn't do it.

What if it only reduces panhandling at ATMs by 5 percent? That seems worthwhile to me.

POLICE STATE!

Listen to yourself. Dominc tried to claim that people walking down the street would have a 15 foot bubble around them, but had to back away. What with it being histrionic nonsense.

Free speech will not suffer because you might get a ticket if you bug people when they have their wallets out trying to stick money in some machine. Democracy will survive. Somehow.

I mean it would be kind of cool to imagine that something like this would drive all the LaRouchies and ranting crazies from our midst. If only. Imagine if all it took was a few cops writing $50 tickets to put an end to all that, uh, democracy and free speech. As it is, it's just a tiny step to try and see if we can make things a little better.

I guess you could offer an alternative way of giving people at ATMs a little peace. But my understanding is that the knee jerk left wants people with voices in their heads to harass people at the cash machine.

All that does is turn mild liberals into gun-owning Republicans. Keep it that up long enough and you'll find out what a police state looks like.

I for one support Tim Burgess in his attempt to arm right wing nutbags in our parks and send girl scouts to prison.

Oh. wait. .... no, I don't.

So, the sole purpose of this law is to make people FEEL safer?

Hey Tim, here's an idea: why don't you craft some legislation that actually MAKES people safer.

So if Real Change is right and the law is redundant, then why do they give a shit? If the council wants to pass a duplicate law why not just let them?

Perhaps because they are not being accurate...?

I'm with Tim. I've often heard the rumor that the guys who panhandle at the biggest intersections make all kinds of money. They are neither homeless nor crazy. The city has a right to its cut of this money. This ordinance seems like a fair way of getting their cut.

The meat of this issue: Why make a civil offense when we already have a criminal offense? Because civil offenses don't require prosecutors, trials, or as much jail time / work for the police officers.

And I hope Tim runs for mayor. He couldn't possibly do worse than McChangeHisMind.

@3
Ok, I'll bite. So you argue that it is ok for a panhandler to use the ATM and then to hang out with his receipt in hand while asking the next person in line to give him money. Oh, ok, I guess that makes sense...at least it does to you. Then you suddenly make a weak attempt to link the argument of not allowing panhandlers at ATMs to Fred Phelps? That is a huge stretch by anyones standards.
wtf?!? Put a little more thought into your argument and then get back to us.

The SPD doesn't investigate car theft, and other nonviolent crimes, because they don't have enough cops to do more than to triage the most violent crimes. Smallest police force in the country.

Oh, and Burgess wants to hire more cops, and gets called a "Sidran" by The Strangler for his trouble.

@12: There'll be a few people there who don't have jobs because they're old and on Social Security. Not everyone is under 40. And probably the Pioneer Square merchants and the DSA people won't get their pay docked for being there.

@4: "But my understanding is that the knee jerk left wants people with voices in their heads to harass people at the cash machine."

Yes. Yes indeed, that's what we want because it only makes sense to want that.

@6 - COMTE, turns out this is all because a bunch of whiny people Downtown want the rest of us to live in a Nanny State, at least according to other councilmembers.

Me, I don't see why any Seattleite should be living in Fear of Girl Scouts, but that's what they want us to be.

Rather than waste time on this law, why not just hire another 5 cops for each shift whose sole job is to wander Belltown & downtown on foot 24x7?

RE "...the Downtown Seattle Association and some social service providers say it will make downtown feel safer." I think this statement nails what's really going on here. The purpose of this ordinance is not that downtown will actually BE safer, only that some will FEEL safer."

Sorry, but I'd rather we work on substantive issues and not mere feelings.

Mr. X, to address one of the errors you are making here: You are thinking Fred Phelps is a representative of a "marginalized population". There is no population of people who think disrupting funerals is anything but disgusting. There is no minority class there. There's just Phelps and his crazy family. They are simply wrong, and they are bad people who should be stopped. Protecting their "speech" serves nobody else.

Same with those who solicit you while you're using a cash machine. People who do stupid shit like that are not the tip of any iceberg. They're assholes and crazies.

Basically, your warped understanding of the First Amendment is that the main thing is to tolerate bullshit and somehow all kinds of good things will follow from society happily swallowing bullshit. Not so. Not so at all. If anything, it's this pathological misunderstanding of "free speech" that swells the ranks of reactionaries who think civil liberties are a sham.

@9

How's about getting the SPD to investigate car theft (which they generally won't) instead?

Interesting how you used this example. SPD doesn't investigate car theft because King County doesn't aggressively prosecute car theft.

SPD doesn't investigate aggressive panhandling now because the city doesn't prosecute aggressive panhandling.

Maybe Tim Burgess should make car theft a civil infraction. Maybe then SPD would investigate more car theft.

In general Mr. X.

I too am against intrusions into our civil liberties. Let us be clear on this issue. We are not talking about changing something currently legal into something illegal. We are discussing changing the penalty for something we've already deemed illegal.

@18 ftw.

Way cheaper.

Mr. X, putting up a sign is also free speech, but all sorts of restrictions on when, where, and how you may put up a sign have withstood constitutional scrutiny. This is not a ban on all panhandling. It is saying you can get a $50 ticket (or community service) if you solicit somebody working a cash machine or pay station. It leaves everyone who is not working one of those machines fair game, and it leaves the whole city fair game.

But your position is that the only way we can have free speech is anarchy.