I don't understand how you can be against fucking over panhandlers but be for fucking over the lower and middle class working citizens by taxing them, but giving the rich sales tax loopholes that the lower and middle class can't afford.

CM Richard Conlin says "...there are people who perceive street disorder..." And that is the nut of it: Perceptions. Some people (very powerful ones) Perceive street disorder, so let's pass this new ordinance so that they will Perceive that we did something about it.

How can we get some councilmembers who live in the real world?

The fair minded majority of citizens can overturn this at the polls. And we should.

Nobody has explained to me how this ordinance and the Tacoma ordinance are even remotely similar, and yet, that was their rallying cry-- "it worked in Tacoma!"

Tacoma ordinance != Seattle ordinance.

you know it's a Dominic Holden article when random phrases are bolded

That report makes liberals look dumb. Good call ignoring it.

@9: What do you suggest?

We're all ears.

@8: Explain how.

@11 - Honest question for you Baconcat - imagine a hypothetical store owner who's business is threatened because a very uncharismatic panhandler sets up in front of his shop everyday and frightens away customers. Do you feel anything for the store owner, or have any interest in solving his problem?

P.S. I've commented on this report before, and pretty sure you replied. As long as our city council is ignoring it, I have no inclination to say more.

@13: Explain how the current law is inadequate and then maybe we'll talk.

SMC 12A.12.015 Pedestrian interference.

A. The following definitions apply in this section:

1. "Aggressively beg" means to beg with the intent to intimidate another
person into giving money or goods.

2. "Intimidate" means to engage in conduct which would make a reasonable
person fearful or feel compelled.

3. "Beg" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words,
bodily gestures, signs, or other means.

4. "Obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic" means to walk, stand, sit,
lie, or place an object in such a manner as to block passage by another
person or a vehicle, or to require another person or a driver of a vehicle
to take evasive action to avoid physical contact. Acts authorized as an
exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest, and
acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Street Use Ordinance,
Chapters 15.02 through 15.50 of the Seattle Municipal Code, shall not
constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

5. "Public place" means an area generally visible to public view and
includes alleys, bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas,
sidewalks and streets open to the general public, including those that serve
food or drink or provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to
buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them.

B. A person is guilty of pedestrian interference if, in a public place, he
or she intentionally:

1. Obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic; or

2. Aggressively begs.

C. Pedestrian interference is a misdemeanor.

The only reason Burgess proposed this is that the DSA actually wanted to chase all panhandlers (read "non-customers") completely out of downtown, Pioneer Square primarily, and as Burgess himself said, this is a compromise. He's running for Mayor; he needs Downtown support. Baconcat's right; the current law covers it completely, but the DSA wants a second law to protect the tourists. Looney left ISN'T right; this ordinance doesn't have "majority voter[sic] support." The only voters are the City Council; we don't have a chance to vote on it, and the only Council arm that hasn't been successfully twisted is Nick Licata's. 8-1 probably in support of Burgess as our next mayor.

@16,

Has any polling been done on it?

The fair minded majority of citizens can overturn this at the polls. And we should.

I'm sure that'll happen.

That HRC Report (PDF) is truly a hoot to read and I encourage everyone to do so. If you're stumped as to why it's being ignored, read it for yourself. See if you can spot all the logical fallacies! Bonus points for adding up the total non sequiturs and tangents that fly in from left field!

He Dominic, I seem to have lost track of the list of groups that support the aggressive solicitation ordinance. Could I trouble you to post that again? I know you've already done so, I don't know, zero times, but maybe just once more? Thanks!

Keep on keepin' it real, Dominic.

My pleasure, Elenchos. I posted about the many groups that testified in favor of the bill in March (you were the first person to comment on that post).

@18: For the sake of transparency, elenchos, tell me how many of the supporters are also members of the DSA: http://www.downtownseattle.com/content/a…

Moreover, you have no grasp on the difference between a civil and a criminal infraction and what happens in the course of enforcing either, so you say "IT'S A NON-SEQUITUR!".

@15 - Don't be lame. You asked me this a few days ago, and I replied that I think the current law IS adequate.

Your turn. Do your politics permit you to feel any concern or empathy for merchants?

@21: Well, being partnered to one and having grown up in a family-run business in a downtown core, sure I do. But there's no proof that this ordinance is needed to accomplish anything like you're insinuating. Nobody has come out with a non-partisan poll regarding panhandling (they just asked "DO YOU THINK IT'S BAD AND PROBLEMATIC? CHECK Y/N"), nor has any economic impact statement been prepared (and there never will be one).

And, I dunno, it's been a reasonably good year downtown for the future Mrs. Baconcat's store, so I'm pretty sure this PLAGUE OF HOMELESS AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLERS THAT NEED TO BE THROWN IN JAIL IMMEDIATELY is a bit overblown, but I won't speak for him.

If you want, I'll get behind a proclamation of "SMALL BUSINESS APPRECIATION DAY".

@21: Also, lol @ you using the "you must hate freedom" argument.

Downtown business interests, Dominic? Is that all?

Like the Union Gospel Mission? I guess all they care about are their real estate holdings and their boutique storefront in Westlake Plaza. Oh, and that monied bastion of Seattle capitalism, the Downtown Emergency Service Center. It's all about the bottom line with those people, huh Dominic? And don't get me started on the YWCA and the YMCA and Plymouth Housing Group.

Seems like every time somebody wants to do some good in Seattle the BIAW and the chamber of commerce types all gather in a smoke filled room with the YMCA and Union Gospel Mission and all those other downtown business interests and fuck it up for everyone with their greed.

Thanks for bringing all that to light, Dominic. Super reporting, as always.

@26: elenchos, be more transparent and tell us more about the boards of these supporters you cite. Then tell us a bit about whether or not the organizations themselves are part of the DSA.

Service providers like DESC and YWCA have probably signed on to the proposal AS A WHOLE, particularly in respect to parts of the plan that increase social services for the homeless. As has been pointed out elsewhere, most folks on all sides of this debate support most of the proposal -- more cops, more services. My guess is that in exchange for these benefits a handful of service providers have agreed to stay mum on the panhandling provision.

@25 - Hate freedom argument? Sorry, no idea what you are talking about.

I'm actually stepping back from this particular argument (which strikes me as little more than a Rorschach test) and trying to get a sense of where you are coming from. Thanks for the reply.

@30: "If you don't support this, why, you must hate business!"

I'm telling you this bill is unnecessary and a completely incorrect approach that will create far more problems than it intends to solve. And I've maintained that from the get-go. Trying to say I'm anti-business is stupid, trying to insist this thing is harmless is stupid.

Let me get this straight, you want to fine a person with money, who clearly has no money thus they panhandle, so the fine money can go into government coffers and that person has a criminal record that makes it hard for them to gain further assistance to get off of the streets?! What kind of idiosyncrasy is that! The correct approach is to find that persons real needs and help them out. Society is too quick to take peoples rights away because it's lost the ability to reason and put themselves in that persons shoes.Constitutionally I fail to find any grounds for such a law being made. In fact I could cite for the opposite. The person on the street panhandling is affirming their right to the liberty to pursue happiness their way. You have the choice to say "no" or to help them. There are laws already on the books for such things so to add to them is redundant and adds a measure of unjust cruelty placed on one who's already down. I know, rather than cater to the business owners, have them all pay into a fund to relocate and help out the panhandlers. After all it seems to be their problem and catering to an exclusive group be it panhandlers or business owners should be done between the groups, not more laws.
Next it will be "throw that person in jail because the color red that they wear gives me a headache!"...and that person thrown in jail just may be YOU!

"I haven’t looked at the data that is supposed to substantiate [the bill]," says Conlin, asked about the commission report that debunks claims in the bill. "But what I am hearing is that there are people who perceive street disorder, and that is problematic. I don't know about connection to more serious crime."

If anyone's engaging in aggressive panhandling, it's fuckwads like this who get paid 6 figures on our dime and can't even bothered to take the time to examine the details behind the shit they support.

I thought the reason for having a representative democracy was because we can't all devote the time and resources to research the issues and make informed decisions. Turns out, neither can they.

I say we all aggressively panhandle the city council for our tax money back.