“I think it is a cheap shot and an inaccurate shot,” says City Council member Bruce Harrell, referring to recent comments from the Seattle Times and its editorial columnist Joni Balter that claim Harrell and three other council members opposed an aggressive-solicitation bill because they are large men. The Seattle Times argues that Harrell—along with council members Tom Rasmussen, Nick Licata, and Mike O’Brien—don’t understand safety risks for smaller people and women. “All four of the opponents of the legislation have a strong belief in public safety,” Harrell says. And he adds that one of the people who voted against the bill, Tom Rasmussen, isn’t a big guy. (Nor, for that matter, is Nick Licata.)
On Tuesday, the Seattle Times editorial page took aim at Harrell, claiming:
He could not get his mind around the danger people smaller in stature, older or less mobile feel in compromised situations. He repeatedly said no one has ever panhandled him at a cash machine. Harrell is large man, a former University of Washington football player. His inability to feel the vulnerabilities of others marks a bad moment for him.
“I have a small 77-year-old Japanese grandmother and a 12-year-old daughter, and, on a daily basis, I look at life through their lens,” Harrell says.
The Seattle Times earlier this week said that some people who complained about public safety were “women in high heels or elderly folks who move slower who give up on downtown because they are asked for money so aggressively.” And Balter said today on KUOW, “I would actually like to challenge the four no-votes, the men, to walk down Second Avenue with me in high heels and holding a baby.”
Harrell calls this “a political attempt to confuse the argument by demonizing the opponents of the legislation.” He adds that it’s “poor form.”
Well, that’s certainly a pretty strong condemnation of the Sarah Palin Defense.
I agree!!!
The shrill complaining is underway as the shift in political control continues from old to new, and the old keeps crapping their pants over it.
What’s wrong from hearing from those who might be panhandled? We sure have heard enough about those doing the panhandling.
The Times is just upset they no longer rule Seattle through their “stakeholders” and that this means change.
Let’s play “I’m more oppressed than you!”
Wow. Bruce might actually be getting some notice now.
Bruce Harrell just needs to walk around “looking vulnerable and docile.” It’s called acting! Then you learn all about the silly stupid fears and crazy paranoid perceptions of all these nutty SUV driving University Village yuppies who should move to Bellevue.
And then you never need to talk to them, listen to them, or mention what they say in your news reports. Acting!
Harrell is the “no” vote who took the biggest political risk and truly demonstrated independent thinking on this one. He forcefully spoke out against the panhandling bill due to its inefficiencies/ineffectiveness and also took note of the concerns the rights commision had with the bill as well
Harrell also kept his mouth shut and his ears and eyes open until the actual vote, which was quite admirable. He actually listens and thinks, not common in electeds.
@8: “crazy paranoid perceptions of all these nutty SUV driving University Village yuppies who should move to Bellevue.”
still going on with all that?
for fucks sake dude, move on, you know just
let. it. go.
instead of going down that path.