Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, March 9, 2010
News Tim Burgess to Explain/Defend Proposed Anti-Panhandling Law Tonight
Posted by Cienna Madrid on Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM
If you're homeless, a girl scout, or have room in your cold little heart for either, you might want to attend tonight's panel discussion on Seattle City Council member Tim Burgess's proposed anti-solicitation law (which Dominic also wrote about here). The proposed law broadly disallows solicitation of any kind within 15 feet of a person "immediately before or after conducting a transaction at an ATM or parking pay station," who is "handling in plain view any money, bank card, receipt, check or other document related to the transaction."
The panel will take place tonight, from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Seattle University School of Law, Sullivan Hall, Room C5, hosted by the Human Rights Commission’s Public Safety Task Force. Along with council member Burgess, the panel will include Jon Scholes, Policy Director of the Downtown Seattle Association; Anita Khandelwal, lawyer for the Defender Association’s Racial Disparity Project; and Real Change Executive Director Timothy Harris.
1
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?
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?
3
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.
4
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".
Whatever your position on panhandlers, this one should be filed under "whatever".
7
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
@5 For one thing, it's not progressive to target the poor. All you have to do is say 'no'. Secondly, why should we ask the police to do such frivolity when our city budget is already strained? Thirdly, people like Burgess target the disadvantaged and they don't stop with one measure. He'll be back targeting some other powerless peoples if he gets away with this.
9
"it's not progressive to target the poor"
It's not targeting the poor, it's targeting stoned/drunk assholes. See the difference?
It's not targeting the poor, it's targeting stoned/drunk assholes. See the difference?
10
@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.
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.
11
So once again: could the Stranger please articulate using your grownup voice, without the hyperbole, what is wrong with this proposal?
12
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.
That's what's wrong. With no hyperbole.
13
Homeless people have the right to beg, and you have the right to refuse. As Sarah said, if you are intimidated or harassed, there are already laws to protect you. If you are simply annoyed, well, tough up.
The only thing this law will do is force homeless people to be more agressive.
The only thing this law will do is force homeless people to be more agressive.
14
no one is taking away beggars' right to beg. They're just taking it away 15 feet from an ATM.
For the life of me, I can't see what's the fuss over this.
For the life of me, I can't see what's the fuss over this.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (14) RSS