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.
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
1. Pete Holmes has said the bill is okay. While you are an alt hip media outlet perhaps that old fashioned nostrum of "hearing from the other side" should apply?
You know, for like, um, balance 'n' stuff?
2. Your implicit proposition is that a court reviews the factual basis or evidence before a legislature and this is totally wrong and would lead to very bad things that usually you would not support. do you want the Roberts Supreme Court reviewing the factual basis for HCR? The strict scrutiny test is about the asserted governmental interest ....not whether in fact it exists....a free speech trial is not a review of the hearings and evidence before a legislature.
separation of powers 'n' stuff.
3. your assumption that infraction laws are bad because of follow on conduct being criminalized (not showing up at hearings) is wrong. All kinds of infractions affect the poor mostly....and lead to jail if the poor don't show up at hearings.
You're just skimming the surface hear. I know it's hard to summarize the legal stuff but try to go beyond a mere recitation of the applicable standards and a conclusory statement the standards for rejecting this bill are met packed with erroneous assumptions and implicit misstatements of how the whole things works.
BTW one quick way to do this is to ..... get the other side of the story. here you have Pete Holmes, very much the people's city attorney, saying you're wrong and you don't even bother to quote him?
Sort of willful ignorance, isn't it?
Hey, Dominic, do you do a lot of work screening who you talk to about this bill? Because for example, I'm sure you must know women who feel afraid to walk alone downtown, but you didn't talk to any of them. You instead walked around "looking vulnerable" or some freaky shit like that. Why not speak to someone who feels that way? Isn't it weird that this bill has such overwhelming support out in the real world but here in the Dominic Holden world everyone is against it? Does that make sense?
And you don't seem to have spoken to the heads of the downtown nonprofits who support this bill. Did they refuse to speak to you or did you not like what they had to say?
Hell, I'd settle for you asking Dan Savage what he thinks about this. Anything to bring in a little fresh air to the claustrophobic stories you keep writing.
And how isn't Dominic part of any class that's targeted by crime? Bias crimes keep going up and up and up in this city...
The question is, if aggressive panhandling arrests are down on a per capita percentage measure, why is this Nanny State law for millionaires being pushed?
So it will perhaps make a little dent. Or it will do nothing. And on the other hand, none of the opposition has anything concrete to offer. Everyone (including weightless fluff parts of Burgess' bill) talks about more cops, by nobody says how they'll pay for them. Everybody wants more services, but nobody says how they'll pay for them. Until you come up with some money in the budget, you really haven't proposed anything, which means your position is to sit on your hands and do nothing.
Is a strapping young man walking downtown "trying to look vulnerable and docile" a fair way of addressing the concerns of people who are afraid of street crazies and drunks? Is that respectful? To me it is an insult.
As far as "aggressive drunks and crazies on the street." Frankly, I don't want folks like that cited with a $50 pay sometime later fine. That does nothing for public safety. If they are a threat to public safety (including the safety of homeless people they prey on), then they should either be arrested or diverted into case management. A fine is ridiculous.
The police are fundamentally lazy. At most they'll tell aggressive types to move along, and much of their laziness is due to the fact that, if aggressive homeless are arrested, they'll be back on the street in a matter of days. Ticketing is less of a time investment and *might* lead to some aggressive people backing off.
And they will be diverted to case management if they fail to show up to court.
What we do know is that the current criminal statute against aggressive panhandling doesn't work because it's never enforced. The SPD spends all its time on murders, rapes, and other serious violent crime. The don't investigate burglaries or car thefts, and they don't spend time doing paperwork and processing suspects for aggressive panhandling.
The whole point of this thing is to give the SPD something they can actually use, because it doesn't require massive resources that they don't have. And it might work a little bit. And still nobody else has any proposals on the table.