Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, March 17, 2010
City ACLU Slams Burgess's Civility Bill
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:24 PM
I'll post a full report in the morning about today's lengthy hearing on City Council Member Tim Burgess's bill to fine people $50 for aggressive solicitation (which we've covered at length). But in the meantime, the ACLU of Washington has sent a stern letter to all of the members of the City Council's Public Safety & Education Committee telling them to kill the measure.
"This is an unnecessary proposal that will be an ineffective tool to address the problems of homelessness and poverty on Seattle streets and is not the proper approach to address concerns about downtown safety," writes ACLU of Washington deputy director Jennifer Shaw (full letter: .pdf). "Seattle already has an aggressive panhandling ordinance; we don't need another one."
Shaw says the bill would do little to stop aggressive panhandling but "could be misused to target 'undesirable' people who who panhandle to support themselves yet make others feel uncomfortable due to their appearance, manner of speaking, or physical attributes."
The bill has created the false impression that the city is trying to solve crime problems by "blaming panhandling," she adds, and instead should increase downtown foot patrols and augment social services. "Unfortunately, those positive proposals have been lost in the controversy about the purpose and intent behind the unnecessary panhandling legislation."
1
I don't think Burgess was hoping this proposal would be an effective "tool to address the problems of homelessness and poverty on Seattle streets"—even in SF there's plenty of 'quality of life' laws on the books that aren't enforced—he's probably hoping this sends a clear message to the homeless that they aren't welcome in Seattle, and he's hoping voters will support the subtext that he's doing something to "clean up the city."
2
Fining a person that has nothing $50 dollars for pan handling? WTF? Why not really wish big and fine them $500,000.
5
Anti-aggressive panhandling laws are stupid.
If you want to address that problem, address it as what it is -- a solicitation. Anyone who asks me for money on the street should have a permit, like a business or charity solicitor. Make the permit revocable on complaints of bad behavior (and the revocation should, of course, be appealable). Then fine anyone who panhandles without a permit.
Add homeless shelters, legal alcohol-consumption centers in central locations, and increase the number of public bathrooms in commercial zones by a factor of 5. You can help pay for the alcohol-consumption centers with the money the city saves by not paying private ambulances to transport drunks to the sobering center or to hospitals. Charge a nominal fee for the bathrooms and use the fee to maintain them and keep an attendant on duty.
It's not that hard. Every city in Europe dealt with this problem 20 years ago, and those guys can barely keep their telephones working.
If you want to address that problem, address it as what it is -- a solicitation. Anyone who asks me for money on the street should have a permit, like a business or charity solicitor. Make the permit revocable on complaints of bad behavior (and the revocation should, of course, be appealable). Then fine anyone who panhandles without a permit.
Add homeless shelters, legal alcohol-consumption centers in central locations, and increase the number of public bathrooms in commercial zones by a factor of 5. You can help pay for the alcohol-consumption centers with the money the city saves by not paying private ambulances to transport drunks to the sobering center or to hospitals. Charge a nominal fee for the bathrooms and use the fee to maintain them and keep an attendant on duty.
It's not that hard. Every city in Europe dealt with this problem 20 years ago, and those guys can barely keep their telephones working.
6
@5: I don't agree on all the details, but I agree in principle: often enough the attempts to punish the offender wind up costing society in general a great deal more than it gains, and yet does nothing to deter future offenders.
We're wired to seek raw justice, I think, but that is not always what is best in terms of the greater good.
We're wired to seek raw justice, I think, but that is not always what is best in terms of the greater good.
7
We have too many police obsessed with harassing bikers and pedestrians already. We hardly need more. We don't need any more politicians like Tim Burgess either.
8
@5: the only problem w/your suggestion that I can see, is that the Supreme Court has ruled that panhandling/begging etc. is protected speech. Besides making all the folks who are calling for outright bans on panhandling look like utter morons (or, morans), this is why Burgess (and city staffers like Peter Harris) are having such a hard time coming up with wording for their bill. They can't actually do what they want, so they're using tortuous language and even worse logic to try and and get the same net result.
If it wasn't such a collective waste of time and energy (and staff time) and didn't serve to further demonize street people, it would actually be quite funny.
If it wasn't such a collective waste of time and energy (and staff time) and didn't serve to further demonize street people, it would actually be quite funny.
9
Don't know if Dominic will cover this tomorrow, but one of the most bizarre elements of today's hearing was that with one exception, every single anecdote folks in favor of the ordinance trotted out referenced behavior that is already illegal under existing law. And the existing penalties are more severe than a $50 fine.
A special pox (as always) on Downtown Seattle Association. Joining them today were the Seattle Mariners, Tom Douglas and the Seattle Nightlife Association (Meinert are you out there? For god's sake man, you folks are smarter than this).
A special pox (as always) on Downtown Seattle Association. Joining them today were the Seattle Mariners, Tom Douglas and the Seattle Nightlife Association (Meinert are you out there? For god's sake man, you folks are smarter than this).
11
I would like to see the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be expended on extra patrols directed to the poor instead.
If it isn't added police budget then it comes from somewhere else. Clearly some enforcement is necessary, but if we going to move the scarce resources from where they are today that will diminish the safety in the neighborhoods.
Four extra cops for one shift seven days a week will cost over half a million dollars.
I would really like to find a way to use that kind of money to help people, rather than putting them in jail, costing us even more money.
If it isn't added police budget then it comes from somewhere else. Clearly some enforcement is necessary, but if we going to move the scarce resources from where they are today that will diminish the safety in the neighborhoods.
Four extra cops for one shift seven days a week will cost over half a million dollars.
I would really like to find a way to use that kind of money to help people, rather than putting them in jail, costing us even more money.
12
9
So what?
It's already against the law to assault or murder a homosexual but Liberals don't mind piling on redundant laws to make sure folks know it's an Extra Special Really Very Bad thing to do and that you'll get punished More for commiting a crime against a homosexual than if you commit the same crime against a regular American...
So what?
It's already against the law to assault or murder a homosexual but Liberals don't mind piling on redundant laws to make sure folks know it's an Extra Special Really Very Bad thing to do and that you'll get punished More for commiting a crime against a homosexual than if you commit the same crime against a regular American...
13
Decentralize the homeless shelters. Spread them around the city; every neighborhood gets one no matter how white and affluent. Ban panhandling on exits ramps and corners in high traffic areas. Turn the soon to be empty amazon building into a mental health facility to take of the crazies who would otherwise go around believing they are bomb wielding vampires. Open a few more so there are enough beds for every homeless person. More programs to teach job skills to help those who are not hopeless drug addicts or hopelessly mentally ill (perhaps in exchange for specific services).
All very sensible solutions that don't criminalize poverty or homelessness, all very sensible solutions that won't happen in a million fucking years. But we will get a billion dollar tunnel...
Sometime I hate this fucking city.
All very sensible solutions that don't criminalize poverty or homelessness, all very sensible solutions that won't happen in a million fucking years. But we will get a billion dollar tunnel...
Sometime I hate this fucking city.
14
If the city loses the inevitable lawsuit about this, can we summarily toss Burgess out?
I have an increasingly bad feeling about the possible financial exposure to the city from this (like we need any more after the Council sold us out to the state on the tunnel overruns) and from the massive possible public relations black eye we can get from this.
I have an increasingly bad feeling about the possible financial exposure to the city from this (like we need any more after the Council sold us out to the state on the tunnel overruns) and from the massive possible public relations black eye we can get from this.
15
There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings about what Burgess is proposing.
First, the new ordinance does not address the 'homeless'. It does not make 'panhandling' illegal. It addresses street crime in many ways, from increasing social services, to increasing cops on the the beat, to attempting to find a way to stop aggressive solicitation.
What Tim's proposal does is multifold -
1. Well-defined restrictions on aggressive solicitation on city streets.
2. Return of fixed-beat police foot patrols in specific areas.
3. Continued hiring of new police officers to enable full implementation of the Neighborhood Policing Plan.
4. Expanded scope and better coordination of street outreach offering support services to homeless individuals.
5. Increased housing capacity combined with support services for the homeless and individuals struggling with mental health and/or chemical dependency challenges
What Tim is trying to do is help solve a real issue downtown - which he's calling "street disorder". Whatever you call it, there is a problem downtown with people feeling unsafe, increased crime, etc. This is leading to lost conventions, less visits from residents of Seattle to downtown, and business closures or downsizing in the downtown core.
Tim also plans to go after the issue of open drug dealing downtown. It's a real problem.
Tim isn't pulling a Mark Sidran. Sidran was going after nightlife, and really after poor people and people and activity he saw as "marginal". Like dancing. Sidran was a tool. Burgess is a compassionate liberal who also wants to see a successful city. A successful city includes, and in many ways is driven by, successful businesses, especially small businesses.
Members of the SNMA own businesses downtown. When Seattle residents stop coming downtown to go to bars and nightclubs, we get concerned. And we're seeing this happen, as are many other businesses downtown.
Now to the ACLU - what the hell? I usually love the ACLU. In this case it seems like they have gone from legal advocates to just policy reviewers. Shaw agrees with the Burgess plan except for the curbs he proposes on only "aggressive solicitation". But he presents no legal reasoning. And he presents no alternative.
Either the ACLU doesn't believe all the people and businesses who have identified a problem, or they don't care about the City. Or maybe their vision for the city involves wanting solicitors to be able to approach and touch me while I'm withdrawing money from an ATM.
What Shaw, the ACLU, and other critics here haven't done is research on how other City's have dealt with this issue. Burgess has. If you don't like Burgess's idea, fine. But do some research and present another plan. The ACLU is doing nothing to add to the discussion of how to help downtown. I assume they are ok with the trend of businesses closing, downsizing and moving out of downtown then. That is a total lack of vision. I'm not ok with that. Let's do something about it. Burgess is trying, I think his aggressive solicitation ordinance is specific and has limits in it that protect people's rights. It's not about the homeless, and it doesn't make "panhandling" illegal.
City Council - let's pass this. And let's get on to some ideas about making downtown an attractive place to visit, work and live. And yes, music, clubs and bars should be part of that vision.
More...
First, the new ordinance does not address the 'homeless'. It does not make 'panhandling' illegal. It addresses street crime in many ways, from increasing social services, to increasing cops on the the beat, to attempting to find a way to stop aggressive solicitation.
What Tim's proposal does is multifold -
1. Well-defined restrictions on aggressive solicitation on city streets.
2. Return of fixed-beat police foot patrols in specific areas.
3. Continued hiring of new police officers to enable full implementation of the Neighborhood Policing Plan.
4. Expanded scope and better coordination of street outreach offering support services to homeless individuals.
5. Increased housing capacity combined with support services for the homeless and individuals struggling with mental health and/or chemical dependency challenges
What Tim is trying to do is help solve a real issue downtown - which he's calling "street disorder". Whatever you call it, there is a problem downtown with people feeling unsafe, increased crime, etc. This is leading to lost conventions, less visits from residents of Seattle to downtown, and business closures or downsizing in the downtown core.
Tim also plans to go after the issue of open drug dealing downtown. It's a real problem.
Tim isn't pulling a Mark Sidran. Sidran was going after nightlife, and really after poor people and people and activity he saw as "marginal". Like dancing. Sidran was a tool. Burgess is a compassionate liberal who also wants to see a successful city. A successful city includes, and in many ways is driven by, successful businesses, especially small businesses.
Members of the SNMA own businesses downtown. When Seattle residents stop coming downtown to go to bars and nightclubs, we get concerned. And we're seeing this happen, as are many other businesses downtown.
Now to the ACLU - what the hell? I usually love the ACLU. In this case it seems like they have gone from legal advocates to just policy reviewers. Shaw agrees with the Burgess plan except for the curbs he proposes on only "aggressive solicitation". But he presents no legal reasoning. And he presents no alternative.
Either the ACLU doesn't believe all the people and businesses who have identified a problem, or they don't care about the City. Or maybe their vision for the city involves wanting solicitors to be able to approach and touch me while I'm withdrawing money from an ATM.
What Shaw, the ACLU, and other critics here haven't done is research on how other City's have dealt with this issue. Burgess has. If you don't like Burgess's idea, fine. But do some research and present another plan. The ACLU is doing nothing to add to the discussion of how to help downtown. I assume they are ok with the trend of businesses closing, downsizing and moving out of downtown then. That is a total lack of vision. I'm not ok with that. Let's do something about it. Burgess is trying, I think his aggressive solicitation ordinance is specific and has limits in it that protect people's rights. It's not about the homeless, and it doesn't make "panhandling" illegal.
City Council - let's pass this. And let's get on to some ideas about making downtown an attractive place to visit, work and live. And yes, music, clubs and bars should be part of that vision.
16
Ps - keep in mind that the proposal requires the City Council to revisit the effectiveness of the program after one year.
There are a lot of safety valves in this proposal, and I believe a real concern from Burgess that this ordinance not trample people's rights.
And for those of you who don't know Burgess, he's smart, effective, and truly cares about people and the City. He's also a big proponent of nightlife. It's good we all have a strong cynicism about law & order proposals since this city has so abused them in the past. But I think with this Mayor, Council and City Attorney, we're in a lot better place.
There are a lot of safety valves in this proposal, and I believe a real concern from Burgess that this ordinance not trample people's rights.
And for those of you who don't know Burgess, he's smart, effective, and truly cares about people and the City. He's also a big proponent of nightlife. It's good we all have a strong cynicism about law & order proposals since this city has so abused them in the past. But I think with this Mayor, Council and City Attorney, we're in a lot better place.
18
@Meinert Do you agree that they've done a pretty poor job of "selling" this, if so many people are up in arms over it?
19
There is a simple solution.
Pop them all in a van and drive them back to where they came from, on the Eastside.
Pop them all in a van and drive them back to where they came from, on the Eastside.
20
@18 - I think this is a very tough issue to explain well. There are a lot of groups with agendas like Real Change and the ACLU that want to create fear rather than dialogue around this issue, and offer criticisms without solutions.
And according to council members I have talked to the public reaction has been pretty favorable, early on 10-1 in favor
And according to council members I have talked to the public reaction has been pretty favorable, early on 10-1 in favor
22
@21 - just to be clear, I love the ACLU, I just think they are wrong and short sighted on this issue
23
What Meinert said.
And one of the reasons people are up in arms over this is Dominic Holden's shitty reporting. Note that the ACLU wasn't dumb enough to try to trot out any of the bogus accusations Holden has previously floated. Those were red herrings meant to fool some readers. Once they were disproven, Dominic switches to some new red herring. But the ACLU has to try to be a little more grown up and stick to somewhat defensible arguments.
I guess I can agree that this isn't the be all and end all solution, but why does it have to solve homelessness and rainy days and loneliness too? This proposal will either have no effect, or it will help a little bit, and leave more work to be done. What's wrong with that? A little improvement is the most you can normally expect from anything.
But maybe Dominic or the ACLU would like to propose an ordinance that WILL solve all problems with homelessness and all problems with panhandling and give everyone a boner whenever they need one too. And I, for one, want a puppy.
And one of the reasons people are up in arms over this is Dominic Holden's shitty reporting. Note that the ACLU wasn't dumb enough to try to trot out any of the bogus accusations Holden has previously floated. Those were red herrings meant to fool some readers. Once they were disproven, Dominic switches to some new red herring. But the ACLU has to try to be a little more grown up and stick to somewhat defensible arguments.
I guess I can agree that this isn't the be all and end all solution, but why does it have to solve homelessness and rainy days and loneliness too? This proposal will either have no effect, or it will help a little bit, and leave more work to be done. What's wrong with that? A little improvement is the most you can normally expect from anything.
But maybe Dominic or the ACLU would like to propose an ordinance that WILL solve all problems with homelessness and all problems with panhandling and give everyone a boner whenever they need one too. And I, for one, want a puppy.
24
One thing The Stranger could do to help readers grasp this better is to print the number of law officers per capita in Seattle side by side with the number of cops per capita in every other major city in the US. You have to look at those numbers side by side to grasp who freakishly, woefully underpoliced Seattle is.
The US Justice Department publishes reports with the number of sworn officers in every city, state and county. It's not hard to add it up and divide by population to realize that Burgess is not just playing to people's fears when he talks about hiring more cops.
The US Justice Department publishes reports with the number of sworn officers in every city, state and county. It's not hard to add it up and divide by population to realize that Burgess is not just playing to people's fears when he talks about hiring more cops.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS