Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
mike.obrien@seattle.gov
(206) 684-8800
http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/obr…
this o'brien clown is a bigger joke than della. send him to crown college.
Either that or you're just losing an argument and can't face it. One of the disadvantages of demonizing everyone on the other side of a disagreement is that when it's all over you have no place to turn. It's that Manichean worldview that painted people like George W. Bush into a corner.
Try this, Dominic. Repeat after me: "Just because we disagree about the panhandling bill doesn't mean you're in league with Mephistopheles." Try it. And take a breath.
Burgess and O'Brian, both darlings of the Stranger editorial staff.
Boy.
and Dominic Holden is a wimpy faggot who sucks off meth-choad panhandlers in Seattle's urine-stinking alleys.
See how that works?
Thank you! I always try to do my best.
We win....everytime. money walks, bullshit talks.
I haven't read all the research here, but I have been to University Village (unfortunately). One of the reasons rich people shop there is that it's basically a fascist amusement park: it's private property, so the mall owners can exclude anyone they want; there are guards all over the place making sure that undesirables don't spange, or sell Real Change, or piss on the sidewalks; and that's what rich people like. So they shop there, and high-end businesses fight desperately to get in there, and the result is that the Ave has been on a steady decline since about 1990. And you can see this shit all over King County. All the most expensive businesses are moving to malls, where retailers can control conduct more vigorously than they can on public streets.
I've lived in the city my whole life, and I've worked in social services for homeless people, and chronically homeless people still piss me off because the simple fact is that they do fuck things up for everyone else. The yard in front of the Unitarian Church on Broadway didn't used to have a fence around it. The entryways of all those old apartment buildings on Capitol Hill didn't used to have gates on them. The corner of Broadway and Harrison didn't used to smell like an open latrine 9 months out of the year.
I agree that our solutions should focus on providing services for homeless people -- and services for people generally (like a lot more public bathrooms). But as a general proposition, I also think that laws that make it harder to shit, piss, throw up, or leave garbage all over the place are not a bad thing just because they have a disproportionate impact on the homeless, and that laws regulating how someone can ask me for money are perfectly legitimate -- we have literally hundreds of laws on the books about advertising and sales and business transactions. The idea that homeless people get more rights because they're not offering to give me anything back for the money they're asking me for is just stupid.
It's why he'll get reelected in 2012 and the loony left will vote for him because who else will they vote for? Nader?
So thanks for playing....didn't you notice the looney left got tossed overboard the second Obama got elected?
It's the looney left and crazy right that don't like his policies.
However, I shop at University Village periodically. I'm not rich. I do go there to specific stores because, yes, it's a lot more pleasant than dealing with a downtown overrun by drug-addled psychopaths harassing people for money. "Fascist playground" is a bit of hyperbole, and then some. I don't believe I've ever seen jackbooted thugs chasing people from the property (surely Dominic Holden has). It's a fucking shopping center, not 1938 Italy.
I used to work at U. Village, in a position that gave me an excellent view of how the entire institution is run. Trust me when I tell you that if you've never seen jackbooted thugs chasing people from the property, it's only because the security guards are fairly subtle about it -- not because it doesn't happen. As far as Italy in 1938, Mussolini famously said that fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. The practical effect of a twenty-four acre shopping center located entirely on public property is to create a zone where state enforcement of private property rights enforce a pure corporate agenda with an absolute minimum of civil rights available to customers and employees.
People forget that fascism was a popular political ideology for a reason: its basic tenets are extremely attractive to a lot of people. "Fascist playground" is a technically accurate and ideologically appropriate description of University Village, if the word fascism is understood in its proper historical context.
So presh.
Burgess is up for re-election in 2011. I will definitely work on whoever is running against him, and write checks, if Burgess continues with his Giulliani posturing. If that means I have to write checks to myself, so be it.
Keep the tin foil on tight there buddy.
Guess you haven't read the NYT this evening:
"Investor Who Made Billions Not Targeted in Goldman Suit"
You can glorify panhandling all you want, but most people see it for the suck that it is.
The sad thing is that O'Brien has a legislative aide who's an attorney and he could have simply asked her.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitic…
Well, to be fair, Russia IS a fascist state.
Yeah, and when my friends/colleagues from Russia visit they aren't put off in the least by aggressive begging (have you ever tried to ward off a ten year old Rom/gypsy?). But they are flabbergasted about the level of homelessness and talk about it constantly.
And, shit, keshmeshi, when the fuck did you become so damn conservative? This is a new you.
You forgot to link to the Seattle Human Rights Commission Report, which states:
"Every individual is entitled to feel safe and be safe in his or her person, home, and community. This right includes the right of every individual to live, work, and visit in downtown Seattle."
This is not the case today in downtown Seattle for older people, women, the disabled and minorities, because a small group of street predators is making our lives miserable. We have rights too, but they have been overlooked in your article. Did you try and speak to any of us?
I read the Commission Report, and it is pathetic. Their sole relevant statistical challenge to the Burgess ordinance is that people living downtown are also concerned about drug dealers and drunks! The overall plan presented by Burgess puts more SPD feet on the street to tackle these problems, so this is an irrelevant criticism. In terms of business dollars, I don't care how many conventions Seattle or the DSA loses. I care about being able to leave between my apartment without feeling like I need a chaperone. Do I call Tim Harris, The Stranger, the SHRC or the ACLU for help next week? I'm so sick of Tim Harris on this issue that I am ready to stop supporting Real Change (which I've done since the beginning).
It's not Real Change vendors that this ordinance is about. It's the crack addled predator on Third who harasses me for the entire block every time he sees me coming. Dominic, your 'survey' is insulting. You are a capable looking young man and so you won't get harassed. I imagine some of the other commenters are also young people like yourself. I can assure you that you would be on the opposite side of this issue if you were an older retired person trying to get home from the store on pension day. Try walking in my shoes for a day and you might have some compassion for our side.
The situation has gotten noticeably worse since the economic downturn and this approach worked in Tacoma. I can only hope that McGinn gets out of his Prius or off his bike long enough to support us.
I've always been just as concerned with livability issues as social justice issues, which means that I frequently side against the people who want to do whatever the fuck they want in the public sphere. It's not wrong to set limits.
I also sympathize at least as much with timid women, disabled people, and little old ladies/gentlemen as I do the homeless. In my opinion, the real conservatives here are the people who tell the former three groups to fuck off and die if they dare complain about aggressive beggars.
I guess from my perspective many -- if not most -- livability problems are best addressed through social justice rather than criminal justice. And this is great example of that. Despite the lip service that Burgess et al. pay to outreach and services, his ordinance does nothing on that front. Not one new penny. Not a single change in the current landscape.
And on the public safety side, I haven't seen one example cited yet of problem behavior that isn't addressed by current law. And more effectively it seems. If someone is truly intimidating or assaulting, I want them arrested and dealt with, not fined.