Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, March 16, 2010
City Council Member Burgess Amends Anti-Solicitation Ordinance—Again
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:37 PM
In an attempt to bring his bill in line with the law, City Council Member Tim Burgess has amended his proposal to fine aggressive solicitors. (He amended it earlier this month, too.) The bill gets its first committee meeting tomorrow morning—and it’s expected to draw a large crowd.
Previously, the bill defined “intimidating conduct," a criterion for a violation, as behavior that "puts a reasonable person in immediate fear of harm or loss." The new language (.pdf) clarifies that “intimidating conduct” is any behavior that “makes a reasonable person fearful or feel compelled to give money or another item of value.” Burgess’s office say this change makes the proposed law—which fines violators $50—jibe with existing law. The city already has an aggressive begging law on the books (punishable by jail) that uses the same language, which was upheld by a federal court.
While this change appears legally solid, critics say that it raises questions whether the law is even necessary. “Why are they bothering with this at all, because the existing law already covers it?” says Tim Harris, executive director of Real Change.
The city council’s Public Safety & Education Committee meets tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall to discuss Burgess's proposed ordinance. Public comment is slated to begin at 10:10 a.m. and run for one hour.
Both sides of the debate are expected to bring their supporters in droves. On one side, advocates representing civil liberties and homeless groups believe the proposal is vague and unnecessary, catching too many people in its net. The ACLU of Washington has generated hundreds of emails to City Council members in the last 24 hours opposing the measure. On the other side, the Downtown Seattle Association and some social service providers say it will make downtown feel safer. More information is in an article we published last week. Says Harris: "Lawyers on both sides are reading this in fairly diametrically opposed ways."
1
So, in other words, it still makes it illegal for girl scouts.
as in "makes a reasonable person fearful or feel compelled to give money or another item of value"
cause when they're there I sure feel compelled to give them money for thin mints ...
as in "makes a reasonable person fearful or feel compelled to give money or another item of value"
cause when they're there I sure feel compelled to give them money for thin mints ...
2
I wish somebody would tell me why soliciting anybody while they're at an ATM should be allowed.
It seems like since nobody can come up with an argument for why panhandling at ATMs is OK, they instead want to talk about how this particular law is less than perfect. Like if it fails to eliminate 100% of panhandling at ATMs we shouldn't do it.
What if it only reduces panhandling at ATMs by 5 percent? That seems worthwhile to me.
It seems like since nobody can come up with an argument for why panhandling at ATMs is OK, they instead want to talk about how this particular law is less than perfect. Like if it fails to eliminate 100% of panhandling at ATMs we shouldn't do it.
What if it only reduces panhandling at ATMs by 5 percent? That seems worthwhile to me.
3
I'll bite - because the ordinance includes a very broad definition of the kind of panhandling at or near an ATM that someone asking for money can be cited for - up to and including the panhandle-ee having completed their transaction and walking away with a receipt in their hand.
Similar arguments are made about the need to inhibit the free speech rights of Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" crew, and I don't buy the similarly made 5% arguments in that particular instance either. I'm not willing to give up any free speech rights to make someone feel 5% safer, thanks. I think Ben Franklin had something to quotable to say about that, too.
(And for real laughs, look at the ridiculous "whereas" clauses Burgess' proposal uses to justify the "need" for this nanny/police state BS)
Similar arguments are made about the need to inhibit the free speech rights of Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" crew, and I don't buy the similarly made 5% arguments in that particular instance either. I'm not willing to give up any free speech rights to make someone feel 5% safer, thanks. I think Ben Franklin had something to quotable to say about that, too.
(And for real laughs, look at the ridiculous "whereas" clauses Burgess' proposal uses to justify the "need" for this nanny/police state BS)
4
POLICE STATE!
Listen to yourself. Dominc tried to claim that people walking down the street would have a 15 foot bubble around them, but had to back away. What with it being histrionic nonsense.
Free speech will not suffer because you might get a ticket if you bug people when they have their wallets out trying to stick money in some machine. Democracy will survive. Somehow.
I mean it would be kind of cool to imagine that something like this would drive all the LaRouchies and ranting crazies from our midst. If only. Imagine if all it took was a few cops writing $50 tickets to put an end to all that, uh, democracy and free speech. As it is, it's just a tiny step to try and see if we can make things a little better.
I guess you could offer an alternative way of giving people at ATMs a little peace. But my understanding is that the knee jerk left wants people with voices in their heads to harass people at the cash machine.
All that does is turn mild liberals into gun-owning Republicans. Keep it that up long enough and you'll find out what a police state looks like.
Listen to yourself. Dominc tried to claim that people walking down the street would have a 15 foot bubble around them, but had to back away. What with it being histrionic nonsense.
Free speech will not suffer because you might get a ticket if you bug people when they have their wallets out trying to stick money in some machine. Democracy will survive. Somehow.
I mean it would be kind of cool to imagine that something like this would drive all the LaRouchies and ranting crazies from our midst. If only. Imagine if all it took was a few cops writing $50 tickets to put an end to all that, uh, democracy and free speech. As it is, it's just a tiny step to try and see if we can make things a little better.
I guess you could offer an alternative way of giving people at ATMs a little peace. But my understanding is that the knee jerk left wants people with voices in their heads to harass people at the cash machine.
All that does is turn mild liberals into gun-owning Republicans. Keep it that up long enough and you'll find out what a police state looks like.
5
I for one support Tim Burgess in his attempt to arm right wing nutbags in our parks and send girl scouts to prison.
Oh. wait. .... no, I don't.
Oh. wait. .... no, I don't.
6
So, the sole purpose of this law is to make people FEEL safer?
Hey Tim, here's an idea: why don't you craft some legislation that actually MAKES people safer.
Hey Tim, here's an idea: why don't you craft some legislation that actually MAKES people safer.
7
So if Real Change is right and the law is redundant, then why do they give a shit? If the council wants to pass a duplicate law why not just let them?
Perhaps because they are not being accurate...?
Perhaps because they are not being accurate...?
8
I'm with Tim. I've often heard the rumor that the guys who panhandle at the biggest intersections make all kinds of money. They are neither homeless nor crazy. The city has a right to its cut of this money. This ordinance seems like a fair way of getting their cut.
The meat of this issue: Why make a civil offense when we already have a criminal offense? Because civil offenses don't require prosecutors, trials, or as much jail time / work for the police officers.
And I hope Tim runs for mayor. He couldn't possibly do worse than McChangeHisMind.
The meat of this issue: Why make a civil offense when we already have a criminal offense? Because civil offenses don't require prosecutors, trials, or as much jail time / work for the police officers.
And I hope Tim runs for mayor. He couldn't possibly do worse than McChangeHisMind.
9
@7,
Because they think this is an overly broad piece of tough-on-crime nonsense that will be used to harass homeless people. Which it will.
@8,
So how exactly does banning panhandling 15' from ATM's and/or parking meters get the City a "cut" from these lucrative corner panhandling concessions you cite?
@4,
When you give the police discretion to go after one set of people - say panhandlers - rather than another set of people doing something that the original draft of the proposed legislation defined as pretty much the same thing - say Girl Scouts selling cookies - then, yes indeed, you create a situation which someone like me who doesn't appreciate creeping authoritarianism would indeed characterize as moving toward a police state.
This is particularly the case when one considers that this proposal won't make people "feel" any safer (any more than the existing ban on aggressive panhandling did), and will doubtless lead to additional initiatives to give the police new "tools" to manage those that the DSA has determined are bad for commerce. Camel's nose under the tent/boiling a frog/etc, etc, etc.
I didn't like it when GW Bush tried to push the Constitutional envelope with the Bill of Rights, and I don't appreciate it when Tim Burgess attempts to in my hometown, either.
How's about getting the SPD to investigate car theft (which they generally won't) instead?
Because they think this is an overly broad piece of tough-on-crime nonsense that will be used to harass homeless people. Which it will.
@8,
So how exactly does banning panhandling 15' from ATM's and/or parking meters get the City a "cut" from these lucrative corner panhandling concessions you cite?
@4,
When you give the police discretion to go after one set of people - say panhandlers - rather than another set of people doing something that the original draft of the proposed legislation defined as pretty much the same thing - say Girl Scouts selling cookies - then, yes indeed, you create a situation which someone like me who doesn't appreciate creeping authoritarianism would indeed characterize as moving toward a police state.
This is particularly the case when one considers that this proposal won't make people "feel" any safer (any more than the existing ban on aggressive panhandling did), and will doubtless lead to additional initiatives to give the police new "tools" to manage those that the DSA has determined are bad for commerce. Camel's nose under the tent/boiling a frog/etc, etc, etc.
I didn't like it when GW Bush tried to push the Constitutional envelope with the Bill of Rights, and I don't appreciate it when Tim Burgess attempts to in my hometown, either.
How's about getting the SPD to investigate car theft (which they generally won't) instead?
10
@3
Ok, I'll bite. So you argue that it is ok for a panhandler to use the ATM and then to hang out with his receipt in hand while asking the next person in line to give him money. Oh, ok, I guess that makes sense...at least it does to you. Then you suddenly make a weak attempt to link the argument of not allowing panhandlers at ATMs to Fred Phelps? That is a huge stretch by anyones standards.
wtf?!? Put a little more thought into your argument and then get back to us.
Ok, I'll bite. So you argue that it is ok for a panhandler to use the ATM and then to hang out with his receipt in hand while asking the next person in line to give him money. Oh, ok, I guess that makes sense...at least it does to you. Then you suddenly make a weak attempt to link the argument of not allowing panhandlers at ATMs to Fred Phelps? That is a huge stretch by anyones standards.
wtf?!? Put a little more thought into your argument and then get back to us.
11
The SPD doesn't investigate car theft, and other nonviolent crimes, because they don't have enough cops to do more than to triage the most violent crimes. Smallest police force in the country.
Oh, and Burgess wants to hire more cops, and gets called a "Sidran" by The Strangler for his trouble.
Oh, and Burgess wants to hire more cops, and gets called a "Sidran" by The Strangler for his trouble.
12
"The bill gets its first committee meeting tomorrow morning—and it’s expected to draw a large crowd."
Obviously not by people with decent or any job...
Obviously not by people with decent or any job...
13
@12: There'll be a few people there who don't have jobs because they're old and on Social Security. Not everyone is under 40. And probably the Pioneer Square merchants and the DSA people won't get their pay docked for being there.
@4: "But my understanding is that the knee jerk left wants people with voices in their heads to harass people at the cash machine."
Yes. Yes indeed, that's what we want because it only makes sense to want that.
@4: "But my understanding is that the knee jerk left wants people with voices in their heads to harass people at the cash machine."
Yes. Yes indeed, that's what we want because it only makes sense to want that.
14
@6 - COMTE, turns out this is all because a bunch of whiny people Downtown want the rest of us to live in a Nanny State, at least according to other councilmembers.
Me, I don't see why any Seattleite should be living in Fear of Girl Scouts, but that's what they want us to be.
Me, I don't see why any Seattleite should be living in Fear of Girl Scouts, but that's what they want us to be.
15
@10,
Actually, what I was saying is that the police can go after a panhandler who politely asks you for money after you're done withdrawing money from an ATM machine and still happen to have your receipt in your hand. Given the ubiquity of ATM machines (not to mention parking meters) in commercial districts where poor people are likely to panhandle, I do indeed have a problem with that.
The Fred Phelps analogy pertains to the fact that there is a family of a dead Marine who are going after the "God Hates Fags" crew's ability to picket at the funerals of service members. The reason this is relevant is that both cases involve the First Amendment rights of marginalized populations. In Burgess' case, he purports to defend people's right to "feel safe." In the case of the family that is suing Phelps for damages- and presumably to defend the constitutionality of new post 9/11 laws such as the "Fallen Hero's Act" - it's apparently the right not to have their feelings hurt. In both cases, I stand up for the rights of the minority to express themselves, even if it makes some members of the majority uncomfortable.
Burgess has tailored his law - which is predicated on the notion that someone's free speech rights have to be curtailed because people need to feel "safe" - in a manner that purportedly applies to everyone in a certain zone, whether they are panhandlers or Girl Scouts, because that is what it has to do to pass Constitutional muster. The fact that it really is intended to go after one class of people - and that it will only be enforced against that class - is relevant. Most of those posting here probably weren't around for the Sidran era, but the ban on sitting on the sidewalk in commercial areas applies equally to poor folks sitting with a sign and quietly asking for change and those in suits and ties (or, in the U-District, a bunch of middle-class college student types) who pull up a section of curb to drink their coffee. Guess who is gonna be cited under the law?
A more interesting question is at what point this proposed new civil infraction - which will require a lower standard of proof and carries no guarantee of legal representation - becomes a criminal one. Or to put a finer point on it, how many unpaid $50 tickets for civil infractions does it take until an arrest warrant is issued? I'd rather not see that guy with voices in his head in jail unless and until he does something that actually warrants it.
A lot of Seattle residents are still profoundly offended by proposals that offer this sort of Rudy Giuliani-style governance, and object strongly at the first sign of it. Count me among them.
More...
Actually, what I was saying is that the police can go after a panhandler who politely asks you for money after you're done withdrawing money from an ATM machine and still happen to have your receipt in your hand. Given the ubiquity of ATM machines (not to mention parking meters) in commercial districts where poor people are likely to panhandle, I do indeed have a problem with that.
The Fred Phelps analogy pertains to the fact that there is a family of a dead Marine who are going after the "God Hates Fags" crew's ability to picket at the funerals of service members. The reason this is relevant is that both cases involve the First Amendment rights of marginalized populations. In Burgess' case, he purports to defend people's right to "feel safe." In the case of the family that is suing Phelps for damages- and presumably to defend the constitutionality of new post 9/11 laws such as the "Fallen Hero's Act" - it's apparently the right not to have their feelings hurt. In both cases, I stand up for the rights of the minority to express themselves, even if it makes some members of the majority uncomfortable.
Burgess has tailored his law - which is predicated on the notion that someone's free speech rights have to be curtailed because people need to feel "safe" - in a manner that purportedly applies to everyone in a certain zone, whether they are panhandlers or Girl Scouts, because that is what it has to do to pass Constitutional muster. The fact that it really is intended to go after one class of people - and that it will only be enforced against that class - is relevant. Most of those posting here probably weren't around for the Sidran era, but the ban on sitting on the sidewalk in commercial areas applies equally to poor folks sitting with a sign and quietly asking for change and those in suits and ties (or, in the U-District, a bunch of middle-class college student types) who pull up a section of curb to drink their coffee. Guess who is gonna be cited under the law?
A more interesting question is at what point this proposed new civil infraction - which will require a lower standard of proof and carries no guarantee of legal representation - becomes a criminal one. Or to put a finer point on it, how many unpaid $50 tickets for civil infractions does it take until an arrest warrant is issued? I'd rather not see that guy with voices in his head in jail unless and until he does something that actually warrants it.
A lot of Seattle residents are still profoundly offended by proposals that offer this sort of Rudy Giuliani-style governance, and object strongly at the first sign of it. Count me among them.
16
@11,
Way to be disingenuous. Tell me where - and I mean ANYWHERE - you have seen objections to any of the other items in Burgess' proposal? In case you hadn't noticed, Nick Licata has been pushing for an increase in SPD beat cop staffing for years (along with citizens of all stripes ranging from Jane Noland to John Fox).
The part that's controversial has earned it.
Way to be disingenuous. Tell me where - and I mean ANYWHERE - you have seen objections to any of the other items in Burgess' proposal? In case you hadn't noticed, Nick Licata has been pushing for an increase in SPD beat cop staffing for years (along with citizens of all stripes ranging from Jane Noland to John Fox).
The part that's controversial has earned it.
17
I'd prefer to ban all public solicitation for money by individuals not representing a licensed, taxpaying business or tax-exempt non-profit organization. (I.e. pure beggars, not Real Change or the Girl Scouts.)
Giving beggars money is like giving spammers money - enough people do it to perpetuate the problem.
Giving beggars money is like giving spammers money - enough people do it to perpetuate the problem.
18
Rather than waste time on this law, why not just hire another 5 cops for each shift whose sole job is to wander Belltown & downtown on foot 24x7?
19
RE "...the Downtown Seattle Association and some social service providers say it will make downtown feel safer." I think this statement nails what's really going on here. The purpose of this ordinance is not that downtown will actually BE safer, only that some will FEEL safer."
Sorry, but I'd rather we work on substantive issues and not mere feelings.
Sorry, but I'd rather we work on substantive issues and not mere feelings.
20
Burgle King, meet the First Amendment to the US Constitution. First Amendment to the US Constitution, meet Burgle King.
I thought someone should take a moment to introduce you two, as Mr. King is evidently unfamiliar with you.
I thought someone should take a moment to introduce you two, as Mr. King is evidently unfamiliar with you.
21
All speech is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Commercial speech more so than most.
Bums aren't typically running for office or collecting campaign contributions (and if they were there would be disclosure requirements) so political speech isn't implicated.
Mr. X, please go take a year of constitutional law at an accredited law school and then get back to me on that whole first amendment thing. You might be surprised at what precedents actually exist.
(Also, income is taxable - federally, at least - without legally conferred tax exempt status. There's an anti-panhandling law in there somewhere...)
Panhandling should be expensive enough to be unattractive relative to availing oneself of gainful employment or the appropriate social services.
Bums aren't typically running for office or collecting campaign contributions (and if they were there would be disclosure requirements) so political speech isn't implicated.
Mr. X, please go take a year of constitutional law at an accredited law school and then get back to me on that whole first amendment thing. You might be surprised at what precedents actually exist.
(Also, income is taxable - federally, at least - without legally conferred tax exempt status. There's an anti-panhandling law in there somewhere...)
Panhandling should be expensive enough to be unattractive relative to availing oneself of gainful employment or the appropriate social services.
22
Mr. X, to address one of the errors you are making here: You are thinking Fred Phelps is a representative of a "marginalized population". There is no population of people who think disrupting funerals is anything but disgusting. There is no minority class there. There's just Phelps and his crazy family. They are simply wrong, and they are bad people who should be stopped. Protecting their "speech" serves nobody else.
Same with those who solicit you while you're using a cash machine. People who do stupid shit like that are not the tip of any iceberg. They're assholes and crazies.
Basically, your warped understanding of the First Amendment is that the main thing is to tolerate bullshit and somehow all kinds of good things will follow from society happily swallowing bullshit. Not so. Not so at all. If anything, it's this pathological misunderstanding of "free speech" that swells the ranks of reactionaries who think civil liberties are a sham.
Same with those who solicit you while you're using a cash machine. People who do stupid shit like that are not the tip of any iceberg. They're assholes and crazies.
Basically, your warped understanding of the First Amendment is that the main thing is to tolerate bullshit and somehow all kinds of good things will follow from society happily swallowing bullshit. Not so. Not so at all. If anything, it's this pathological misunderstanding of "free speech" that swells the ranks of reactionaries who think civil liberties are a sham.
23
@9
Interesting how you used this example. SPD doesn't investigate car theft because King County doesn't aggressively prosecute car theft.
SPD doesn't investigate aggressive panhandling now because the city doesn't prosecute aggressive panhandling.
Maybe Tim Burgess should make car theft a civil infraction. Maybe then SPD would investigate more car theft.
How's about getting the SPD to investigate car theft (which they generally won't) instead?
Interesting how you used this example. SPD doesn't investigate car theft because King County doesn't aggressively prosecute car theft.
SPD doesn't investigate aggressive panhandling now because the city doesn't prosecute aggressive panhandling.
Maybe Tim Burgess should make car theft a civil infraction. Maybe then SPD would investigate more car theft.
24
In general Mr. X.
I too am against intrusions into our civil liberties. Let us be clear on this issue. We are not talking about changing something currently legal into something illegal. We are discussing changing the penalty for something we've already deemed illegal.
I too am against intrusions into our civil liberties. Let us be clear on this issue. We are not talking about changing something currently legal into something illegal. We are discussing changing the penalty for something we've already deemed illegal.
25
@21
There is no time, place, or manner restriction that allows a blanket restriction on commercial speech as you propose in public spaces that I'm aware of, and panhandling by the indigent has indeed been found to be protected speech. There is also a lot of case law about the rights of canvassers to go door-to-door on private property, as well (though lots of jurisdictions try to push that envelope, generally unsuccessfully). In the unlikely event that panhandlers are making enough money that they rise to the threshold of having to report income to the IRS, there are laws covering that.
@22,
I think Phelps has every right to protest at funerals. The courts will probably uphold it, too.
@24,
It is not currently illegal to politely ask someone who is feeding a parking meter or at an ATM machine for spare change.
There is no time, place, or manner restriction that allows a blanket restriction on commercial speech as you propose in public spaces that I'm aware of, and panhandling by the indigent has indeed been found to be protected speech. There is also a lot of case law about the rights of canvassers to go door-to-door on private property, as well (though lots of jurisdictions try to push that envelope, generally unsuccessfully). In the unlikely event that panhandlers are making enough money that they rise to the threshold of having to report income to the IRS, there are laws covering that.
@22,
I think Phelps has every right to protest at funerals. The courts will probably uphold it, too.
@24,
It is not currently illegal to politely ask someone who is feeding a parking meter or at an ATM machine for spare change.
27
Mr. X, putting up a sign is also free speech, but all sorts of restrictions on when, where, and how you may put up a sign have withstood constitutional scrutiny. This is not a ban on all panhandling. It is saying you can get a $50 ticket (or community service) if you solicit somebody working a cash machine or pay station. It leaves everyone who is not working one of those machines fair game, and it leaves the whole city fair game.
But your position is that the only way we can have free speech is anarchy.
But your position is that the only way we can have free speech is anarchy.
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 (27) RSS