The recent battle at City Hall over an aggressive-solicitation bill was about more than perceived public safety in downtown Seattle. It was about fighting undue influence over elected leaders. It was about whether the coalition of organizations that defeated conservative money in last November’s election could also win battles over city council legislation. And it was about the next mayor.
City council member Tim Burgess, who had aligned himself with wealthy downtown stakeholders and is widely expected to run for mayor in 2013, sponsored the measure that would fine violators $50 for aggressive solicitation (severe panhandling or fundraising). It seemed reasonable, and this was Burgess’s chance to cast himself as a consensus builder.
But the bill was riddled with flaws. The Seattle Human Rights Commission found that the ticket-to-court mechanism prescribed by the bill would give vulnerable defendants no right to an attorney and could stick them with a criminal conviction for not paying a ticket that a poor person couldn’t reasonably be expected to afford. Scores of progressive leaders and organizations—from the ACLU and NAACP to Real Change newspaper and the Church Council of Greater Seattle—rallied to block the bill.
Burgess’s base of moneyed downtown interests—the Downtown Seattle Association and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which also backed Greg Nickels and then Joe Mallahan in the mayoral election last year—fought hard on the other side. They lobbied the city council for years.
But their money and influence weren’t enough to float a flawed bill. The coalition of financially less-powerful groups, which fought to elect Mayor Mike McGinn last year, pressured Council Member Mike O’Brien to reverse his decision to support the bill. As a result, on April 19, five of the nine council members (O’Brien not included) voted in favor of the measure—technically passing it, but not with a big enough margin to override McGinn’s promised veto. The mayor says he got only eight calls and e-mails in favor of the bill and 208 against it. “That was an astounding number,” McGinn said.
McGinn acknowledges that Burgess may run for mayor in 2013, and he says that the political implications of the decision to block the bill—such as exacerbating his testy relationship with the council—didn’t weigh on his mind. “Clearly, our ability to work on issues should not be made harder by the fact that we disagree,” says McGinn.
It’s unclear if council members will attempt to override the veto with a second vote; chances seem slim, because they currently lack the sixth vote that’s required to overcome the mayor’s objection.
Even if they do succeed—which appears unlikely—Burgess’s attempt to unify Seattle has failed. He’s roundly seen as a lightning rod for division, which isn’t a strong platform for someone who hopes to be mayor, and downtown money has been defeated, for now.
“It beat them back, but they are going to come back,” says Tim Harris, director of Real Change. “There was a lot of hubris from the Downtown Seattle Association,” he says, but in the future “they will have to do more than just meet with the opposition—they will have to listen to what we have to say.” 
Why let facts get in the way when you’re spinning a compelling narrative? Like the fact that it wasn’t just greedy businesses that wanted this law. What about the heads of the Union Gospel Mission, or the YMCA and YWCA, or Downtown Emergency Services?
Why do you avoid talking to them? Why do you never even mention them? Because it clouds the picture?
Why did your investigation of aggressive panhandling consist solely of you, a strapping young man, walking around “looking vulnerable”? You could easily have interviewed women or tourists or couples on dates, who you yourself admit have reason to fear the crazies downtown. You don’t have to agree with them, but why not at least speak to them?
All this posturing about defeating undue influence rings kind of hollow when The Stranger is so adamant about presenting only an insular, one-sided view, without so much as acknowledging the existence of other voices.
Many of those people–who signed to show their their personal support, not the organizations–have strong ties to those same downtown business interests. Rita Ryder of the YWCA is on the Downtown Seattle Association’s board of trustees AND the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce board. YMCA’s Gary Wyckoff is an ex-officio board member of DSA. William Hobson of DESC supports it, and his board includes Mark Sidran. The DESC board also includes Richard Stevenson, the president of Clise Properties, which supported this bill. I reported on the DSA and the chamber of commerce’s side of the debate, and these folks are with the DSA and chamber.
The Seattle Public Library is also in the DSA. Is there anybody downtown who isn’t in the DSA?
But I appreciate you explaining your conspiracy theory in detail. Your prejudice makes it impossible for anyone but evildoers to disagree with you. By definition anyone who supports this bill is a greedy conservative, or a marionette of greedy right wingers. The fact that supporters of this bill include people who deliver services to the poor and homeless every day means nothing to you if you can dig up a rumor that they once had tea with Mark Sidran. (Mark Sidran laughably being Seattle’s local Dick Cheney, for those who are new to this game.)
I still want to know why you didn’t interview any of the people who are intimidated by drunks and crazies on the street. Is it really good enough for you that hulking ex-football player Bruce Harrell has never been bothered at an ATM? Why didn’t you speak to any women? Why?
Elenchos, I spoke to and quoted many women in the course of reporting this story (in many pieces in the paper and on Slog). I also wrote about peple who felt intimidated downtown. But the debate over this bill is not about tolerating harassment and intimidation–those things are never okay, and we have laws on books that deal with them–it’s about a bill that misrepresented information, contained serious problems with due process, and would be ineffective at promoting public safety.
Well we have laws against assault too, but hate crimes laws aren’t only about assault, are they? For years conservatives said there was no need for hate crimes laws because “we already have laws on the books that deal with that.”
Funny how easy it is to reframe the debate isn’t it? When certain groups are a afraid to walk down the street, it’s natural to give the police more tools to protect them, but for other groups it is all a big lie cooked up by business interests.
I could use some help finding those quotes from those who felt intimidated whom you interviewed, because that comes as a surprise to me. And can you clear up whether or not you categorize people who feel intimated as tools of The Man? Are they sincere or are they marionettes?
I hate to also upset your worldview here Dominic, but…
DSA support for GAU
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op…
DSA support for 1811 Eastlake – housing for chronic alcoholics
http://www.desc.org/1811.html
Seattle Housing Resources Group – started by the DSA
http://www.hrg.org/htm/about/history.htm
“Funny how easy it is to reframe the debate, isn’t it?”
Yes, obfuscation isn’t difficult, you do it all the time. You delight in it, even.
What we have here in your vehement support of this bill is an unwillingness to acknowledge the depth of the issue. You do it by referencing hate crimes legislation, equating what amounts to a wholesale systemic abuse with feelings of discomfort in the public square. You also do it by shifting the goal posts, dismissing first-hand accounts unless the person adheres to what appears to be a strict definition of vulnerable.
This isn’t about protecting the easily intimidated or the vulnerable living on the street already, it’s about doing as little as possible while erasing most social services spending to basically kick undesirables out of the city, period. No solutions, just kick the bums out. Literally.
There are solutions, and they’ve been around for years. In fact, although they are expensive, they frequently have near-immediate results. The Community Partnership for Homeless has reduced the homeless population in Miami-Dade by over 80% and they don’t rely on citations and laws. San Diego has had similar success (70% get their own place, permanently). San Antonio, TX has invested $100 million into their own center called Haven for Hope.
Thinking as narrowly as you do, it would be difficult for me to expect you to believe that there are other solutions and that people could possibly overblow a problem so drastically that they actually hurt real living people.
Ref. 71: Yes to healthy families and economy
Guest opinion – Kate Joncas and Lyn Tangen
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/s…
Baconcat, I fully support trying other solutions. I would be very happy to see a concrete measure put up for a City Council vote — a measure which budgets actual dollars to help the homeless. I wouldn’t complain about paying more taxes if it meant doing more. But I’m not holding my breath for either McGinn or Licata to take action. Like Burgess, they talk about more foot patrols, but don’t say where these cops are going to come from. McGinn and Licata don’t have a proposal of their own in the works, do they? Only talk, and obstruction, and maintaining the status quo.
This isn’t about the homeless by the way. And nothing was proposed to kick anyone out.
Many of these aggressive panhandlers have homes. For me, getting them into treatment, getting them psychiatric care and substance abuse treatment, with adequate supervision, is key. Establishing a history of civil infractions for aggressive panhandling with the hardcore offenders would be a good start in making that happen. Yes, funding for treatment is still missing, but $50 tickets for the offense is a start.
elenchos: The citation is $50, but treating them (which entails a stay in King County Jail, the second largest mental institution in the state) costs $300 a night with most of those in treatment/incarcerated spending 140 nights longer in jail longer than most others, on average. We’re losing $250 up front on each citation that goes unpaid. And they WILL go unpaid. After that? Hundreds a day. On each person.
The reason foot patrols work is all based on perception, which is key. And it’s key to your argument, because you perceive downtown to be unsafe. More foot patrols will reduce the assumption of an unsafe environment, reduce what little actual violations there are and make everyone feel a whole lot better.
These citations and the enforcement of them? Money down the drain. Lots and lots of money down the drain.
At least a foot patrol can tell folks how to get to the Space Needle.
Except for the influence these citations have on the behavior of panhandlers. One of the inherent assumptions here is that these panhandlers are all mindless, and passive. Their behavior can change, if anyone made an effort to change it.
Dismissing people’s concerns as mere perceptions is insulting, and it helps explain the underlying problem with this do-nothing thinking.
I don’t know why you’re arguing for more foot patrols. Foot patrols are great. They’re awesome. Let’s have them!
Now where are the cops going to come from? Either you are going to pull them away from other neighborhoods, or hire more cops. Which neighborhoods get the shaft? Where’s the money for more cops? McGinn? Hello?
McGinn? What’s the next move?
This will do nothing to change their behavior. Either the cops arrest a whole lot of them and a bulk of them move to Bellevue or Shoreline or they will all just lie about their conduct. Either way they’ll all eventually come back and we’ll await the next ordinance.
elenchos, if you knew what you were talking about regarding money, you’d know that the council has been told to budget more money for foot patrols for months. McGinn has made the proposal.
And if you knew anything about actual legislation, you’d know that McGinn, while he can veto a proposal, cannot actually say “we’re spending money on this”. That’s the Council’s job, and we’ve got 5 councilmembers completely opposed to any action of the sort.
Nice to see how willing you are to obstruct and then lie about it by claiming obstruction on the part of others. Hypocrisy and obfuscation.
McGinn thinks it’s his job to give the council a wish list and it’s the council’s job to take the heat for making the budget balance? Nice work if you can get it.
Has McGinn said what he wants to cut to pay for the foot patrols? Has he proposed a new tax to pay for them? It’s time for somebody to lead, isn’t it?
If we put the weight on the Mayor, you must know — full disclosure, here — that the budget came from Nickels. You must also know that it is approved and adopted by the Council: http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment…
McGinn has a bit of time left in proposing a budget. In the meantime, he can propose, but the buck stops with the Council.
In case you wanted to know how it actually works.
That’s the typical kind of wishful thinking that made Eli Sanders write that having his veto overridden was somehow a win for McGinn.
I like McGinn. I voted for him enthusiastically. But if all he does is block measures which try to take real action, and then ask for nice things like more cops or services for the homeless without saying where the money comes from, he’s going to take a beating for it. Maybe even bland old Burgess will parley McGinn’s passivity into his own advantage.
If he lets the buck stop at the council, he is handing over power to them and letting himself get rolled.
elenchos, no, that’s how city government works.
The mayor can veto an ordinance, easily. That’s his duty as chief executive officer and general popular advocate for the city. On the flipside, the City Council can override his veto which means a properly whipped City Council has more power than the Mayor in legislative matters.
The City Council sets policy, the Mayor administers it. If the policy is that the Mayor should listen to his constituents (that’s obvious) and there’s a sufficient gray area to a vote (5-4? Yeah, gray), he can veto a bit of legislation. That’s in the Seattle City Charter, RCW and basically any civics class you can think of.
For the record, there was a shuffle of police officers from low activity beats to Belltown and Pioneer Square at the behest of the Mayor. Sounds like the start of some action to me.
That’s how elections work, buddy. People want a mayor who leads, not one who says, “that’s not in my job description!”
McGinn isn’t getting good advice from anybody, is he? The guy is toast if he doesn’t wise up.
I think one of the more interesting aspects of the coalition that voted no is Bruce Harrell’s vote. Ordinarily he is viewed as pro-developement. It’s not a stretch to say he voted against one of his bases and took the biggest political risk. However, he showed his independence and spoke very forcefully about the cycle of entrapment in the criminal system which could arise from the bill’s due process flaws as well the bills other inefficiences.
The people have spoken, elenchos.
Did you not catch who all is opposed to this?
Seattle Human Rights Commission
The Mayor
4 Councilmembers, current
State Senator Joe McDermott (D-34)
State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36)
King County Council Member Larry Gossett
City Council Member Nick Licata
The Honorable Judge Jim Street
ACLU of Washington
Seattle NAACP
Real Change Newspaper
Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness
Interfaith Taskforce on Homelessness
Seattle Displacement Coalition
El Centro de la Raza
Minority Executive Directors Coalition of King County
Lutheran Public Policy Office
Statewide Poverty Action Network
Asian Counseling and Referral Services
Urban Rest Stop
ROOTS
Church Council of Greater Seattle
34th District Democrats
36th District Democrats
37th District Democrats
43rd District Democrats
46th District Democrats
On top of 208 calls against to 8 for to the Mayor and a difference of dozens more against than for to O’Brien. This is all a result of lobbying, research, advocacy and citizen involvement.
Many have warned McGinn that the City Council will eat him alive and that he wouldn’t have the balls to stand up to them, but here he is, vetoing a major ordinance in the face of all these dire warnings.
On your side, your initial argument was that IMPORTANT people supported it and therefore it was GOOD. That it was vital to the downtown core. And yet the DSA could barely muster a lopsided and weak defense of the bill. Even those who are normally strongly pro-business are attempting to distance themselves from this bill by making nary a peep on getting the Council to support it. Meanwhile, many more are telling the Council they are opposed.
The writing on the wall is clear, elenchos, the people want this veto.
You can create all these strawmen about how Dom’s reporting is weak because he didn’t talk to women (he did) or report on social services orgs that support the bill (he did), but you’re launching a lopsided attack with a weak defense. You won’t acknowledge the social services providers that are against the bill, you won’t give credence to the opposition from a variety of elected officials, you create an intellectually empty “critique” of the SHRC’s report (hint: you need to bone up on basic high school level civics, law and logic), you hide behind your kid, you create laughably imaginary anecdotes about your time downtown, you dodge between saying you’re for the homeless and then dissing them, you don’t understand what treatment entails, you lack any civic awareness, you cry foul when someone does research because it’s not to your specifications, you get mad that McGinn won’t do what YOU want him to do, you call McGinn weak and yet get angry when he shows a spine and then you flounce whenever someone calls you on your lukewarm defense of the bill.
In case you didn’t notice, you’re in a very small minority that’s explicitly for this bill, both here at Slog (it’s you, Reader1, Limousine Liberal and a couple of Unregs, really) and in the general population of Seattle itself. More than that, you’ve offered up the most inane and irrelevant defense of this bill that could possibly be mustered, namely one of obfuscation and delusions.
elenchos, you’re wrong. Completely.
I applaud Mayor McGinn for acknowledging public opinion (real) and ignoring “public opinion” (fictional). I applaud him for standing up to empty-handed pandering that targets a voteless caste. I applaud him for recognizing the greater social implications. I applaud him for not targeting a group that is most damaged by a recession when the city is in low spirits. I applaud him for not giving in to a small minority of this city.
If the Council will be marked by this type of legislation, then I welcome McGinn’s so-called obstruction with open arms. Running roughshod over our shared civil liberties in the name of perceived discomfort and unsubstantiated fearmongering should NEVER be tolerated. We should not be held hostage to a group because they believe they hold the purse strings. McGinn, as mayor, should oppose all these things.
Thank you, Mayor McGinn, and many thanks to all the very vocal opponents of this bill.
And thank you, elenchos, for mounting a defense so incomprehensibly thin and inadequate that it thrusts the truth of this bill and its non-support into the sunlight.
It is my hope that in the coming days, Councilmembers Clark and Godden will see the light and take a socially-conscious step forward to oppose this bill. No more strawmen and scapegoats in Seattle. Let’s go for the real problems.
Yeah, I’m wrong completely.
Everybody who’s not with you is against you. Everyone who doesn’t agree with you completely is part of a huge conspiracy of downtown business interests and conservative marionettes.
There can be no compromise. You must fight this battle to the very end because everything is at stake. Fucking nutter.
Compromise on what, elenchos? I’m certainly not compromising with you, and I definitely find a positive message in testimony from the likes of Conlin and I’ve pointed out the positives in the bill as well.
And I’ll say it again, you are wrong.
In order to continue this meme of how wrong you are, here’s a letter from today’s Seattle Times:
@Elenachos, do you think in general the opinions of Important People inherently outweigh the opinions of Other People as a general principle in city governance?
Because frankly, that’s what ALL of this boils down to on the meta level. All of it.
Answer that question and directly, without obfuscation, reframing it, or anything else.
A) Important or B) Others
A, or B? This is about your political worldview on the city level, nothing else. A or B.
Alright, its pretty simple, I am going to go get some coffee and hang out with some friends downtown, and as I am walking away from the cash machine……Boom! the attacks start,”could you spare me a couple of dollars” says the homeless guy that stinks of old booze.(what happened to spare change?). I tell him “no, sorry buddy”. Does he stop asking for money? NO! And why should he? Nothing is stopping him from tormenting me! Until he gets his money he won’t stop! This guy keeps getting more and more aggressive. He starts swearing and saying he needs food. I offer him food, he then scoffs at me with disgust. I then tell him to get a job. He says F you and tells me that if he had a knife he would slit my F***ing throat. If I wasn’t with my group of tough looking guys, he probably would not have stopped. So, the cities idea of security is get your own, and deal with it. And they wonder why gansters run around with guns. what a joke.
And Evelyn, where downtown was this? What cross street? What time of day?
Joe, did you just tell me I have to complete a little questionnaire? Fuck off, OK?
I would really prefer if this were discussed respectfully, on its merits. On the facts. Not based on everyone’s list of Who’s Who big wigs, and whose support all the lobbyists and advocates have enlisted.
From Day 1, The Stranger has made this about the personalities, pure ad hominem. It’s crappy, lazy journalism to stereotype politicians like Burgess as being some kind of extreme wolf-in-sheep’s clothing conservatives based on a stereotype about police officers and something about his old company’s clients. Instead of looking at his 3 years voting record on the city council.
But it’s just shitty and offensive to attack the leaders of non-profits who work every day to help needy people, such as DESC. Disagree? Sure. Attack them as marionettes of The Right because their opinion differs? That’s disgusting. Have a little respect for the good work these groups do and consider the possibility that maybe their opinions are valid.
And Joe: You’re a real prick for trying to cross examine Evelyn this way. Have a little fucking respect. People are trying to give you the truth about things they experienced and you’re rejecting them because it doesn’t fit your prejudice. When gay people report being harassed you don’t see The Stranger second guessing the truth of their stories, but anybody complains about panhandlers and suddenly they’re making it all up. Were there any witnesses? Photos? Did you bring it on yourself with the way you dressed and your provocative behavior?
Maybe you’re half wrong and the other side is half wrong. Ever think of that? Maybe you could learn a little by listening instead of attacking.
Please argue the merits of your case and stop shitting all over people who see it differently.
@25: I’m sorry, elenchos, but you’re the one that replies to the SHRC’s report with derision. You’re a hypocrite.
Your own words:
I’m sorry Elenchos, I’ve been relatively civil about this from the get go on multiple sites and fronts, but I’m getting tired of the Burgess-led FUDing of downtown Seattle. I’m downtown and in Belltown at least five days every week if not more. I’m not a little guy, and I don’t count my own experiences–I’ve been panhandled always respectfully. Sometimes I give; sometimes not. I don’t know a single person that has been ‘aggressively panhandled’.
The fact that Burgess tried — from a legislative perspective — to craft this in his own narrative rather than basing it upon facts, and then we have all these mysterious and frankly–fuck you to everyone who said such things–bullshit and nonsensical claims about being ‘scared’ of ‘downtown’ from ‘dirty’ people.
WHERE are the public record police reports of these complaints about homeless people chasing others around? Where is the empirical proof? Yes, I asked her a point blank question: What neighborhood? Morning, night? Why shouldn’t I ask? If more media had the balls to pull Burgess aside, hammer him with FOIAs, and get the evidence of this epidemic of deviant homeless, you know what? I’d have supported the bill just like you yourself. I’m extremely science-minded. Give me demonstrative metrics that prove a need for a law like this, and I’ll support a law like this.
There was no scientific evidence. There was the DSA and downtown businesses keeping Excel spreadsheets on “annoying” homeless people. There’s people saying things like the “dirty people” on the “bus” deter them from downtown. Well, guess what. WE LIVE IN A CITY. I grew up just outside New York and was down there almost monthly. New York is amazing but it’s a fucking pigsty compared to Seattle. I often felt unsafe in NYC depending on the neighborhood even in the 2000s; I rarely if ever feel unsafe in NYC. I’ve spent inordinate amounts of time in Baltimore; Boston; DC, and have been to foreign major cities in Romania and England. London’s got it’s fair share of crazies, Baltimore depending where you are is outright frightening.
Seattle is peaches and creme compared to all of them, flat-out, full-stop. Our proportional crime rates are lower, our streets are cleaner.
And still… no evidence of the need for this. No commitment from Burgess, Mr. Cop Legislator, to get fill up the need for extra permanent beat cops in downtown, Belltown, and Pioneer Square. Why? Why isn’t he willing to float a tax increase to get more cops, if citizens are falling over themselves in terror?
Here’s why: because he did this to position himself to knock off McGinn in the next election. The minute Burgess began excluding evidence and public opinion from the official proceedings he elevating himself from “What is he doing?” status to “Who the fuck does he think he is?” Being a Councilman does not entitle him to any free passes.
If he was so noble and good and truly believed in this measure, he would have played this straight as an arrow. He didn’t, his side lost, and the American political system worked EXACTLY like it’s supposed to work.
Is it shocking and scary that the progressive left (which Burgess emphatically is not a member of–he’s a few degrees removed from what we’ve been seeing from Dino Rossi and Suzie Q based on this) is getting mouthy and finally standing up successfully? What we just saw on the local level is happening on the national level, too:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/…
The free ride for bullshit is over.
“rarely if ever feel unsafe in NYC” = “rarely if ever feel unsafe in Seattle”. Should have ran something this long through a proper grammar edit.
All points that any laws based upon anything but cold, hard, unvarnished and non-political facts are intellectually retarded and/or harmful stand.
If Burgess is such a right winger, how come you aren’t talking about his right wing voting record on the council for the last 3 years? “Mr. Cop Legislator”? Really? Stereotype much?
Oh, but it’s Burgess whose not playing it straight. Got it.
Baconcat, I’ve been blocking all your comments since I can’t remember when. I unblocked them here to try to talk to you but I can see that’s a waste of time. Fnarf has tried to reason with you and you’re just not up to the job. The reason I block commenters like you or Ecce Homo or Loveschild or John Bailio is that reading nonsense is not something I have time for. You might think I have all day for this, but I actually have other demands on my time.
Go ahead and rail against me and let other people read what you say. I’m done with you. Bye.
I win. For whatever good that does me.
Joe, Evelyn, shuddap already.
…Let Baconcat and elenchos get back to their flirting, er, I mean fighting.
😉
Baconcat is right about how the city works, btw: the leadership is really both the council AND the mayor, and budgets aren’t ‘real-time’.
Elenchos is spot-on about the Stranger’s reporting too: they can be as bad a FauxNews sometimes. Dom’s always written that way.
The Real Question is, if you already KNOW this, why aggravate yourself with reading more of his disagreeable work? Sado-Maso much?
FYI
I stopped giving to Union Gospel because of their stance on this: I think their heart was possibly in the right place, but their pocketbook/clout sure wasn’t.
You have other demands on your time? REALLY? Ok, if you say so…
Though…
You’ve posted over 30 times since 9am yesterday…
I’m a 6 ft 2 white guy who dresses well…these guys won’t fuck with me.
Just the weak and feeble, like progressives and midgets.
Soooo downtown will stay as messed up as it has been for the last few decades? More blah, blah, blah and wringing hands and deciding not to decide etc. I’m all for helping the homeless and those who are not enabled, but in real need, but we have a huge problem here out on the streets. Why have a nice, glitzy downtown with interesting places to go and open parks when open harrassment is everywhere, along with the trash and feces. And I am as liberal as they come, but I gave up going downtown, especially at night (Belltown especially) a long time ago. The last time I did, I thought I was in a prison riot. (not kidding)
Baconcat … I’m glad you tried. Elenchos is an ass.
“I win. For whatever good that does me.”
Baconcat, please remember the adage about winning an argument on the interwebs.
And now, for my $.02 worth of free advice. As a former substance abuse facilitator, I would like to ask everyone why they think it is OK to give money to people on the streets.
Do not allow ANY panhandling, even the Pikes Place Market finally got wise to these issues, and requires a performance permit.
Do you not realize that this is the problem, not a symptom of the problem? By putting people into treatment, you will fix 90% of the problem.
Do not give them money, find them services, they are still available.
Do not allow people to sleep in the streets or other open spaces within the city, if you haven’t noticed most of the shelters have room; they just can’t take in someone who is under the influence.
Do not allow people to be in public while they are overly intoxicated. These are the people who need treatment; get them off of the streets for their own safety.
If you really cared for these people, you would advocate for them, not enable them. It’s called tough love for a reason.
sqt doom. You seem so educated and really up on current events and the correct tags for homeless/panhandlers etc. Must be wonderful to be able to mindfully correct all of us uneducated simpletons on the latest verbal definitions.
I love it when Elenchos announces he is blocking someone. I imagine a five year old with his fingers in his ears, screaming “I CAN’T HEAR YOU I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!”
Mr. Holden, you do understand, don’t you, that with your past drooling over McGinn, you’ve really lost any credibility when it comes to these sorts of debates? Any time you “report” on a dispute between Hizzoner and ANYONE ELSE, we all will expect you to come down on the side of the Mayor. And then you prove us all clairvoyant.
My goodness. Ya know…I don’t have time to read all the negative comments. Sorry! Got a life and stuff. Terrific article, Mr. Holden. It’s clear as a bell this particular decision was the correct one.
I’ve lived on Capitol Hill, Seattle, since the age of 16. I’m (far too fast) approaching 53-YO. Yeah, there are street people who sometimes annoy me, but I’m very rarely intimidated. I actively support Real Change, and I there are some people on the street I call friend. The “crazy” people who some sometimes find intimidating are 99.99% nothing but hot air, and they are not a threat. I’ve come to love the “crazy’s” in fact, and would much rather live in a city that allows people to be themselves than live in a cold, dark, sterile void.
The people I don’t care for are the people who scapegoat others less fortunate than themselves. It is not anyone elses fault but your own if you can’t get suckers to pay your highly inflated prices for retail and rental space, because after all, that IS what this is all about. None of you anti-homeless people actually feel threatened. You’re just blaming the weakest amongst us for your inability to capitalize on your greed. Ummm…SHAME ON YOU. Oh! And god bless, and have a nice day.
Oh…sorry for the typo’s. I got so pissed-off I forgot to proof. My apologies ~ oops
Oh…sorry for the typo’s. I got so pissed-off I forgot to proof. My apologies ~ oops