Tim Harris, the executive director of Real Change, writes about Tim Burgess’s plan to pursue aggressive panhandlers:
Councilmember Tim Burgess will soon introduce legislation to the Seattle City Council to restrict panhandling in Seattle. He says his proposal simply sets a few minimal standards of behavior in the interest of public safety. Not true. Tim Burgess is sucking up to money, pandering to fear, and punishing the poor.
I moved to Belltown just as that neighborhood began to wrestle with aggressive panhandling. Million-dollar condos abound, but so do social-service organizations for the poor. If one thing is true about pandhandling, it is that your perspective will likely decide your opinion on the issue. Hassled by a panhandler outside your car? You’re probably not very sympathetic. This quote from Harris is indicative of that:
Recently on KUOW, Tim Burgess described a frightening encounter with a freeway on-ramp panhandler who banged on his car window that very morning in pursuit of a handout. Despite my ample experience with on-ramp panhandling, I’ve never had this happen, and wonder how many of us have.
We can all agree that people on the street who strong-arm tourists for spare change are criminals. What can be harder to face is the fact that panhandling just flat makes people uncomfortable, including Harris:
Even I, sitting in my car awaiting the on-ramp timing light, will sometimes avoid the gaze of the sign-holding needy. To be made fidgety, however, is different than being threatened. The only threat here is to the well-padded comfort zone of affluent Seattle.
Being confronted by poverty on the street is unpleasant, but it is nothing compared to the underlying reality faced by those on the street. Are laws further penalizing aggressive panhandling a reasonable response to a legitimate concern? Or are we avoiding the bigger issue?
I used to walk a lot through my old neighborhood, past the crack dealers on 2nd Avenue and Bell Street, past the offices of Real Change and DSHS. I would see people begging for change, some with a sign and a cup, some who were a bit pushy. But only once or twice in five years did I ever feel threatened. Instead of passing laws grouping the benign beggars in with the real thugs, maybe city hall should be honest. Let’s admit that we’re not doing much for the folks on the street. Maybe then we can start having a real conversation about the things that make us uncomfortable.
@ 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.
The new laws would allow the police to request panhandlers stop aggressive behavior or face the threat of arrest / fine. The police clearly do not feel they have that ability now or they’re unwilling to use the tools at hand. Seattle police are notoriously shy enforcing quality-of-life issues.
As for a test of the system? Why not print and sell “services” coupons the pan-handled could give panhandlers. Panhandlers could exchange the services coupons for bus rides or laundry / shower services / food banks / clothing, etc…
The city could track the sale and redemption of the coupons as an indicator of panhandling activity.
Street ambassadors would sell coupons in or around areas where panhandling is common. The city or county could even recruit chronic panhandlers in the sale.
Of course, most panhandlers (and other homeless) have access to these services for free already. Most panhandlers, in my experience, want / need money. Money is freedom. Coupons for free laundry don’t mean anything when you need to get drunk / high / whatever.
Most of the pan-handled, however, would not give money for activities they disapprove of.
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.
**= http://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.
@68: “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.”
There are many programs, widely publicized to the homeless, to deal with those issues. Dress for Success and Voc-Rehab are two of many programs that help provide business attire and grooming. Many homeless shelters and work programs offer resume assistance and telephone messaging, and there are many great job training programs like Farestart.
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.
Wow. I can’t believe what a chicken shit Reality Check is. Must suck to go through life afraid of everything like that. Please dude. Do the world and get some therapy to deal with all of your fears. What a pussy.
@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.
In New York the panhandlers HOLD A PAPER CUP. That’s it. At most they will open a business door for you. They never get into your face or your space.
My most memorable SF panhandler was a guy on Market Street who spotted me carrying a suitcase. He kept up with me for two blocks, telling me a complicated story about how he was a serviceman trying to raise bus fare to get back to what turned out to be Fort Ord.
However, this was 2000, and Fort Ord had closed six years earlier.
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.
@17 and @68 I think these two comment bring up an important point. I have lived in the city for almost six years now. I have been asked for money more times than I can count – and usually in an aggressive way. If they aren’t hitting on me then they are yelling at me. I’ll give you two examples: one guy in front of a grocery store on 15th said, “Gimme money or you’ll get slapped!” Another just this past week said he would kick my ass if I didn’t give him money. I carry mace and I’ll tell you it’s the best $16 I ever spent. I don’t go around randomly spraying people and in fact have only sprayed someone once. But point it at them and the jackass runs away – poof it’s magic! If you have a problem with it ladies or hate being harrassed for any reason, pick yourself up some mace at the Army Surplus store in Belltown. However, in spite of my anger towards these parasites who think threatening me is ok, I often wonder if I am madder at them or the city which has allowed them to get to this point. There are lots of services for the poor and homeless but there seems to be far more demand than services available – especially as people are losing their homes and jobs in record rates these days. I never give money to panhandlers and certainly not to those “street kids” in Westlake sporting the emo style clothes and candy jewlery. I just hope that the next mayor, whomever that might be, makes a better effort to end homelessness in Seattle than Nickels and that we recognize these people for who they are – people.
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!) 😉
“Liberals can’t like pussy?”
No, but they have to eat unshaven, nasty, hairy-up-to-the-navel pussy that connects to leg and armpit hair and confuses having a big mouth with being intelligent.
Perhaps if you guys really like it, you shouldn’t use it as a derogatory term.