More "after the jump" please.

The "conservative" Times also endorsed Barack Obama, Al Gore, Patty Murray and nearly every Democratic member of Congress and the Legislature. Just sayin'.

I wish I could say it as eloquently as you do. But let me add I canceled The Times and wish I could cancel it again.

@3 Add to that their endorsements of Mike McGavick, Dave Reichert, George W. Bush, ...

"Every individual aggressively panhandled in the months ahead should blame McGinn." --Seattle Times

BWAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAA!!!

So we shouldn't blame the economic meltdown, or the people in high places responsible for it, for aggressive panhandling in Seattle. We should blame Mike McGinn instead.

BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!!!!!

I miss Nickles.

Yeah!

"Spilled most of its ink on a blow job called "Councilmember Tim Burgess crafts a deliberate style,"

Really paints a descriptive picture.

I don't know. Isn't doing nothing about either street harassment or the needs of the poor and substance abusers McGinn's signature issue now?

And they were right to point out the vacuousness of Harrell's protestation that he -- a powerfully built ex-UW footballer -- was never panhandled at ATMs. That's great for guys like you, Bruce. Now talk to your constituents.

For me, personally, I was never bothered by panhandlers, being a young and healthy looking man with, believe it or not, no problem asserting myself. But then that all changed when I found myself always carrying a baby when on the street. Suddenly the drunks and addicts and crazies were all over me. They didn't push me hard before, but as soon as they could see I couldn't run, couldn't fight, and probably wasn't in the mood for a confrontation, they took advantage.

Shannon Harps was murdered by one of these crazies we let run loose every day. Remember the guy throwing lighter fluid on people and igniting it in the streets just this year? It makes me think I could be next, once I realize I've been marked as an easy target since I'm carrying this kid with me now.

Most panhandlers aren't like this but there are enough of these predators out there that something needs to be done. If we have laws on the books now to deal with it, then where are the cops to enforce that law? Who is going to pay for these cops? Is there a plan on the table? McGinn, at this rate, is going to be running for re-election as Mr. Do Nothing Status Quo. I'm concerned.

It's kind of fun watching the "Seattle" Times so out of it, that even their endorsements no longer carry any weight in Seattle.

I chart that back to the debacle when they endorsed Bush for President.

Bravo Dom, I bet that felt good to get off your chest!
@7 I hope to see that phrase on a t-shirt soon.

@15 - we're shipping them on light rail back to Bellevue and Mercer Island.

See what you miss when you skip a Sound Transit meeting?

@Dominic, it must be hard to breathe with McGinn's dick so far down your throat. I mean, I voted for him, but the energy and time used to write this pointless blow job could have been used to any number of more productive ends.

Wow...although there are typos reminiscent of another...place...very well put.

elenchos--were any of the people set on fire by the crazy guy carrying a child? Were any of them not? Should you really feel more threatened by the next flamethrowing crazy (when's he due?)?

@12 Elenchos…do you really want that post of your dismantled by others, or can you do it yourself?

Well said Dominic.

I wonder how many members of the ST editorial board are actually residents of Seattle. Somehow I'm guessing that most of them aren't part of the "we" who actually live in the city.

In other words you got nothing and you're bluffing. Nice try.

The poor Seattle Times must miss the days when they called the shots in Seattle. Now days they bearly have influnce.

elenchos - Gee, if we had socialized medicine, those "crazies" would have places to stay and regular access to medication and care.

The only difference between the "crazies" and you is a traumatic brain injury.

@12:

Most panhandlers aren't like this but there are enough of these predators out there that something needs to be done. If we have laws on the books now to deal with it, then where are the cops to enforce that law? Who is going to pay for these cops? Is there a plan on the table?

Who's going to enforce the new ordinance? Where's the plan? How many will we devote to answering these calls to issue a citation?

Yes socialized medicine would be fantastic. I think we will have a decent system in place in a few more years.

It's funny how this groupthink works -- everyone who doesn't go along with the program must believe all sorts of horrible things. Because you are sooooo right and everyone who disagrees with you is evil.

Bye, Soupytwist.

@12 - Between doing nothing and doing something incredibly stupid, I'll vote for doing nothing every time. But the fact is, McGinn hasn't done nothing. He and Diaz have increased foot/bike patrols in the affected areas. Are you opposed to that?

And let's point out something: we don't have infrastructure for treatment or longterm supportive housing, so our second largest treatment center in this entire state is the King County Jail. Anyone saying "we need them treated" is basically saying "just throw them in jail".

elenchos makes this long obfuscated argument about status quo, but "treatment" IS status quo. We keep them in jail for about 140 days longer than most (which is what treatment ACTUALLY entails) and then release them for a while until they get sent back again (for doing things like, I dunno, murdering people). We are NOT treating these people. We do not spend money for treatment like we should, even though it costs $300 a night in this county to keep them housed.

Cities elsewhere have learned you need to stop bullshitting and start doing; San Diego and Miami have more than halved their homeless population and cut back panhandling extremely. San Antonio, where the homeless will literally line up on the periphery of the Alamo grounds to beg, has devoted $100,000,000 to supportive housing, directing panhandlers to the center which houses hundreds a night and has a treatment apparatus that allows folks to sober up, get back on their feet and get a job. AND IT WORKS.

There's a marked improvement in San Antonio already, in fact, with the downtown campus of the University of Texas and adjacent areas like El Mercado and the Smithsonian suddenly devoid of panhandlers. That's unheard of, but it's real. Even the day laborer meeting point outside the China Star lacks a crowd of guys in the morning, it's down to only a few people at this point.

Some folks downtown do need longterm assistance and segregation from the general public, but a vast majority don't. We can help them and help ourselves by making a concerted effort. If necessary, we can get those that advance far enough to sweep the streets downtown and maintain landscaping, in order to make their pay. It would save on cleaning contracts.

I propose a levy.

@12 Elenchos.

1) Nobody is proposing "doing nothing" about crime on the streets, the plight of the poor, or substance abuse. There are many laws that already cover street harassment. It is a willful misreading of events to conclude that those who didn't support this particular legislation are doing nothing regarding these issues. Can you back up your claim?

2) Did you actually listen to Harrell's testimony or are you merely relying the Time's characterization here. I found his reasoning to be rather solid, and the point him not being panhandled was not central to his arguments.

3) In what way were you "taken advantage of" by panhandlers? Did it arise to the level of aggressive as defined in this specific legislation? Can you give us some examples? Or, were you merely panhandled more frequently?

4) Shannon Harps? You're seriously going to trot out Shannon Harps and the guy with lighter fluid in order to support this specific piece of legislation? Are you suggesting that the guy who was using lighter fluid should be fined $50 and sent on his way, as this specific legislation would do, or do you think he should be arrested, as existing law would prescribe? Either way, your delusional if you think this specific legislation covers anything having to do with the murder of Shannon Harps or other violent acts.

5) How would passing this specific legislation done anything at all to add more cops? How would the specific legislation solved any of the problems that you're referencing? You seem to have pinned a lot of hope onto this specific legislation that it would do things that quite simply, it would not do, not even close.

In short, your rant about the do-nothing Mayor proves only that you don't really know what you're talking about in relation to this legislation.

@33 - Bush served two terms.

He wasn't eligible to run against Obama, that was Comrade McCain from Panama and his Russian running mate Sarah Palin.

Again, that's when it started. And it just keeps getting more and more so, to the point that most Seattle citizens make fun of the Suburban Times.

This isn't even advocacy journalism. I'ts just name calling. "The Seattle Times lies." Really? Is this how we argue with editorial opinion these days?

Honestly, this post just makes me a little queasy. I'm sorry, Dom, I just can't take the Stranger local politics beat seriously anymore. Publicola wins.

@36: Dominic has an opinion on the opinion of someone else, oh no, stop the presses.

@ 36) Michael, seriously. No one is saying the Seattle Times is a liar, or a paper that always lies. A lot of their reporting--transit, crime, city hall--is really good. But the two points I'd written about before that sentence just weren't true. The Seattle Times is claiming that we--they and everyone else--elected McGinn. They were against him. The Seattle Times also says he's not listening. But he is listening, just not to them.

3) In what way were you "taken advantage of" by panhandlers? Did it arise to the level of aggressive as defined in this specific legislation? Can you give us some examples? Or, were you merely panhandled more frequently?

I love how the number one argument against doing anything about aggressive begging is that the people complaining about it are weak, stupid, crazy, or just making shit up. Go fuck yourself, Timothy.

I think I'm quoting you directly, here, Dominic; "The Seattle Times is lying." I maintain that it's difficult to lie when stating opinion. You disagree with their opinion. That does not make them liars.

The level of hyperbole in this particular policy discussion has erased any sense of accurate reporting by the Stranger. I expect it from the commentors. I expect more from the reporters.

@ 40) I was referring to two points made in the the Seattle Times' editorial. I said it in the post and in the comment above. Your beef seems misplaced.

I think your weight on their "we" statement is misplaced. As a reader I read "we" as the citizens of Seattle, not the Times. Your parsing serves your purpose but I don't think it's accurate. But the parsing is the problem. The Times is an easy target, the Stranger's core readership will mock them in a heartbeat.

My beef is the lack of depth and nuance in the local politics beat. Its been reduced to axe-gringing and name-calling (remember "Mike O'Brien is a pushover"?). It's playground politics. I prefer reporting. I'm beginning to feel that that isn't an option anymore.

An opinion about an opinion about an opinion in a blog post on a blog rife with opinions, jesus, get me the fainting couch! Le SWOON!

Great post! Watching you guys make fun of The Blethen Daily Butt Trumpet never gets old!

@39 Keshmeshi…I'm not dismissing anyone's claims or calling them weak or stupid, etc. But, the specifics of what people are claiming is and isn't aggressive begging matters. There were whole litanies of testimonies from people complaining about things that the legislation didn't cover.

What's more, I actually believe that if the behavior is as egregious as many people claim, then those so-called panhandlers should be arrested, not merely fined. I'm fine with treating aggressive and violent behavior with tough measures.

As for your suggestions on how I should treat myself, I'll take it under advisement.

I am against the proposed law. I am also against McSandbag in general. He creates opposition to him, making harder to agree with him.

He will get less done for you because of his conflict driven style.

3 and a half more years until I can vote for somebody else.

Let's also remember that his accomplishment was a veto. You can train a pet chicken to do that.
I guess I should not expect too much from the mayor's office in the way of creating policy and making it happen. He is playing defense, and being offensive while doing it.

@46, I agree, some people are panhandling, some or mugging, calling robbery that does not involve a gun or knife is still a mugging, and still a crime.

I am so glad that McGinn does ignore the Seattle Times. Based on their editorials and sentiments concerning the panhandler bill, what a rag!

Ha! Elenchos, the dumb fucker, didn't answer Timothy @ 32 because either a) HE is the one with nothing, or b) he reflexively blocked Timothy because elenchos didn't get the answer he believed he deserved right away.

BTW keshmeshi, you really overreacted and owe Timothy an apology. You probably realize that after his response to you, but it's something you should be told outright.

Timothy, one of the reasons it's so difficult to have an intelligent discussion is that Holden and others have worked so hard to demonize everybody who disagrees with them. So you find it easy to believe that I was suggesting the lighter fluid attacker should be fined $50. That would be stupid. You find it easy to believe I'm that stupid because you've been lead to think that everyone on the other side is idiotic and evil. Look at all the personal attacks in these comments: this has been whipped up in to an ideological jihad, untethered from reason.

The extremes of violence we've seen, like the Harps murder and the lighter fluid attack, are clear examples of why the public doesn't just want to shrug it off when a nutter in the street starts yelling obscenities at them. It's not just harmless crazies out there, and that's why nobody wants to be near them. It's why the public wants the mess cleaned up.

Harrell's statements were of a piece with Dominic Holden's and many others on this issue: that those who are sick of the harassment should suck it up and stop imagining things. It's insulting, and that attitude will not serve Harrell, or the Stranger well. McGinn would do well to distance himself from such people.

The $50 civil infraction was one small effort to do something -- because existing law was doing nothing. Existing law was too difficult to enforce. There was also a lot of fluff about more foot patrols that everyone agrees with but nobody has the balls to say how we're going to pay for.

Maybe McGinn or somebody has a plan to do something real, but why is it being kept a secret? As far as I can suss out, there are no new ordinances in the offing, and no funding for police or services. McGinn is asking the city council for more nice stuff, but he has dodged the tough choices of what to cut to pay for it, or what taxes to raise. He is expecting the council to do all the heavy lifting, and take the heat.

@41 - at least I actually live here and vote here.

Them ... mostly not.

Thanks Dominic. I just want to give you a big old hug or buy you a big old beer after reading this one.

PS to the Seattle Times, for the four hundred millionth time, no I do not want to 'support' you by subscribing to fireplace kindling material.

@53 elenchos...

Sure, I get that there can be reasoned discussion, but you're the one who jumped in with accusations of the Mayor being a do-nothing, and drawing parallels between this specific legislation and the Harps murder, etc.

Many oppossed the legislation specifically because we felt that it IS a "do nothing but give the appearance of doing something" measure. Hence, my questions to you to tease out how, specifically, you think it would have accomplished anything related to the specific issues you were raising.

And, the fact that Burgess pushed this NOW does not make it fair game to then claim that those who opposed this specific measure don't care about the issues raised. As you acknowledge, funding is an issue, and working to increase cops and services requires strong planning and execution; doing that on Burgess' imposed time table is not appropriate.

I could rehash all the ways in which I actually believe that doing this measure would be more hurtful to what you're after, but that's old news at this point, and Dom has outlined much of it here in the past couple of weeks.

I wasn't saying you are stupid, and if you want to go "reason" on this topic, then perhaps tone down your own rhetoric about Mayoral failures and do-nothings; there are principled reasons to oppose this measure, and many people believe that this issue was primarily being used as a powerplay unrelated to the specifics in the legislation itself.

So yes, let's reason together.

First I would remind everyone what broad consensus there is for more foot patrols. If we can ignore all the bad blood created by attacking each other over an imaginary left/right ideological divide (Thanks, Dominic! Now stop it.) then we can work together to actually fund hiring the cops and putting the foot patrols in place.

Now is a golden opportunity for the mayor to make a bold, substantive proposal. He could announce something on Friday when he vetoes the bill and all eyes are on him.

The Times' "we" is like John McCain's "my friends".

Wait--what's with all these journalist blow jobs for married men?? Where's the love for us single folk?

How cute. But no matter how much Stranger writers rail against the Times, the Times is a REAL paper. The Stranger's envy is quit apparent. Why doesnt the stranger just come out and say it, "oh we picked and endorsed and believe we got McMayor elected. Give me a break. The Stranger is just some small time hipster sounding board. But it is still cute to watch you guys attack a battleship with spitballs.