Is he going to defend the $5 million shortfall for the Chihulhy Glass Museum they want to build instead of a skateboard park or a grassy knoll where the Fun Forest used to stand?

Maybe we could all panhandle him for the $2 billion in cost overruns for the Billionaires Tunnel he got us roped into ...

Or would that be pressing and persistent?

If somehow those aggressive Save teh Children people I have to find my way past EVERY DAY on my walk up the hill could be included, I'd be all for it.

The law only prohibits panhandling near ATMs and parking pay stations? Big fucking deal. I somehow got the impression it was more sweeping than that.

Whatever your position on panhandlers, this one should be filed under "whatever".

I still don't understand the problem with this proposal.

Can I panhandle aggressively inside the Chihulhy skatepark?

Honestly, do you people really enjoy being screamed at and called a biggot multiple times a day because you don't want to give money to junkies and insane people?

@8
I really hope your wrong about Burgess. He should learn from the examples of Mark Sidran and Tom Carr - Seattle isn't a good place for squeaky clean authoritarian politicians.

Honestly, though, this seems like a sensible rule. People don't have right to intimidate and harass just because they are poor.

So once again: could the Stranger please articulate using your grownup voice, without the hyperbole, what is wrong with this proposal?

For one thing, it is quite likely a civil rights nightmare and will end up in the courts. When that was mentioned, Burgess simply said, "The City Attorney has a fund for that." That fund is composed of our tax money. For another thing, it's stupid, because the only way to prove that someone has actually aggressively panhandled you is for a cop to witness it. Otherwise, it's your word against the panhandler, and although we're in a bad state, I don't think we're quite there yet. And there aren't enough cops on the street to do that. And there are already laws against people harassing other people. So why's he doing this? Possibly because he's running for Mayor for the next 3.5 years and wants to solidify the favor of the downtown business people? Who really want a TOUGHER ordinance, which he admits?

That's what's wrong. With no hyperbole.