Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

City Leaders Condemn Council for Ignoring Human Rights Commission

Posted by on Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:15 AM

Council Member Tim Burgess is going to lose by winning.

This morning, 15 organizations, including several church groups and the ACLU, will band together at a press conference to condemn the city council for ignoring a Seattle Human Right Commission report that warns about the ramifications of an aggressive-solicitation bill. Sponsored by Burgess, the bill says that any suspect who doesn't pay the $50 fine or misses a court date, likely scenarios for homeless people without money or an addresses to receive mail, would automatically be guilty of a criminal misdemeanor. The problem, as the commission notes, is that issuing a citation gives a cop a low burden of proof and gives a suspect no legal right to a lawyer, but the suspect easily winds up with a criminal charge. Nonetheless, the council appears ready to pass the bill next Monday.

The commission—a board tasked by city law to advise the council on policy—also found that data don't support the core claims of Burgess's bill: that aggressive solicitation is a growing public-safety problem in Seattle. "[W]e are concerned that the data are insufficient to support the substance of the proposed ordinance," the commission wrote in a scathing 15-page report.

"I don't remember all the stuff that they said in the human rights commission report," says City Council President Richard Conlin, who says he supports the bill, "but when I went through and looked at the ordinance, it looked like a reasonable and modest step.

"We listen to everybody," Conlins says, "but that doesn't mean we have to agree with everybody."

As it happens, Conlin and Burgess agree with downtown business interests that are behind the bill, led by the Downtown Seattle Association and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which have lobbied the council for years to pass another panhandling ordinance (we already have a law on the books that makes aggressive begging a criminal offense). They targeted the council with testimony and letters that overwhelmingly complained about behavior that is already illegal (like assaults) under existing law or is simply annoying (like swearing).

“I haven’t looked at the data that is supposed to substantiate [the bill]," says Conlin, asked about the commission report that debunks claims in the bill. "But what I am hearing is that there are people who perceive street disorder, and that is problematic. I don't know about connection to more serious crime."

Neither Conlin nor Burgess mentioned the report—or the commission's vote to oppose the bill—at a committee meeting last week, nor did they provide copies to the public. Burgess, along council members Conlin and Sally Bagshaw, voted to send the bill to the full council.

However, on Monday night, the 37th District Democrats unanimously voted to oppose the bill, because it fails fund the sort of police and human services that would actually address street crime and contains other flaws detailed by the commission.

David Bloom, a former minister and one of two people who introduced the resolution to the 37th District Dems, says he's not surprised by the council. "They roll over for what the downtown business community wants over and over and over again," he says. "They are, by and large, unwilling to stand up to the political and economic power in downtown Seattle—and that’s what’s really driving this."

The 34th District Democrats and the 46th District Democrats also look poised to vote on similar resolutions tonight and tomorrow, respectively. And the 36th District Democrats may also consider a resolution.

More after the jump.

Fifteen organizations will hold a joint press conference to express "frustration that the Seattle City Council has ignored the Seattle Human Rights Commission’s recent damning report."

The groups: ACLU of Washington, Seattle NAACP, Real Change News, the 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, Church Council of Greater Seattle, Seattle Community Council Federation, Urban Rest Stop, and Roots.

The bill will probably pass, Bloom acknowledges, but it comes with the scrutiny of people who "will be monitoring it closely and use it for political leverage in the future to mitigate against the harmful affects of the ordinance."

But Burgess—who is widely expected to run for mayor in 2013—is making enemies among grassroots organizations with huge memberships, potentially several District Democratic organizations, human rights advocates, and anyone who doesn't kowtow to downtown money. If Burgess is dead set on muscling through feckless, unjustified, misleading legislation that pisses off those people, it will come with a steep political price.

 

Comments (33) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
TheMisanthrope 1
I don't understand how you can be against fucking over panhandlers but be for fucking over the lower and middle class working citizens by taxing them, but giving the rich sales tax loopholes that the lower and middle class can't afford.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on April 14, 2010 at 6:44 AM
2
CM Richard Conlin says "...there are people who perceive street disorder..." And that is the nut of it: Perceptions. Some people (very powerful ones) Perceive street disorder, so let's pass this new ordinance so that they will Perceive that we did something about it.

How can we get some councilmembers who live in the real world?
Posted by Citizen R on April 14, 2010 at 7:23 AM
Vince 3
The fair minded majority of citizens can overturn this at the polls. And we should.
Posted by Vince on April 14, 2010 at 7:24 AM
Baconcat 4
Nobody has explained to me how this ordinance and the Tacoma ordinance are even remotely similar, and yet, that was their rallying cry-- "it worked in Tacoma!"

Tacoma ordinance != Seattle ordinance.
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 7:31 AM
5
you know it's a Dominic Holden article when random phrases are bolded
Posted by happy renter on April 14, 2010 at 7:47 AM
6
Who cares if it is not a "growing problem". It is BAD ENOUGH already. Why to progressives want to turn every place into a third-world shithole?
Posted by Celebrate Diverseshitty on April 14, 2010 at 7:52 AM
7
"church groups". Yet another in the long list of reasons why I hate Christians.
Posted by Youth Pastor Watch on April 14, 2010 at 7:56 AM
seandr 8
That report makes liberals look dumb. Good call ignoring it.
Posted by seandr on April 14, 2010 at 7:59 AM
9
Why don't you Seattle liberal idiots do something about the REAL problem in this city: BLACK THUGS. Black thugs commit HALF of the MURDERS in Seattle every year, even though ALL blacks in Seattle make up only 8% of the population of Seattle.
Posted by Celebrate Diverseshitty on April 14, 2010 at 8:02 AM
Baconcat 10
@9: What do you suggest?

We're all ears.
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 8:11 AM
Baconcat 11
@8: Explain how.
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 8:12 AM
12
I'm gonna resist the temptation to respond to our resident KKK troll today, and I'd suggest that others try to as well.

But back on topic, this is pretty much politics as usual in Seattle - and just another example of why we desperately need districts to eliminate the 8 vote majority the DSA usually has on the City Council....
Posted by Mr. X on April 14, 2010 at 8:35 AM
seandr 13
@11 - Honest question for you Baconcat - imagine a hypothetical store owner who's business is threatened because a very uncharismatic panhandler sets up in front of his shop everyday and frightens away customers. Do you feel anything for the store owner, or have any interest in solving his problem?

P.S. I've commented on this report before, and pretty sure you replied. As long as our city council is ignoring it, I have no inclination to say more.
Posted by seandr on April 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM
14
"The fair minded majority of citizens can overturn this at the polls. And we should."

No they won't. This bill has majority voter supporter. Opinions of Sloggers are pretty irrelevant to grown ups.
Posted by Looney Left on April 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Baconcat 15
@13: Explain how the current law is inadequate and then maybe we'll talk.

SMC 12A.12.015 Pedestrian interference.

A. The following definitions apply in this section:

1. "Aggressively beg" means to beg with the intent to intimidate another
person into giving money or goods.

2. "Intimidate" means to engage in conduct which would make a reasonable
person fearful or feel compelled.

3. "Beg" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words,
bodily gestures, signs, or other means.

4. "Obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic" means to walk, stand, sit,
lie, or place an object in such a manner as to block passage by another
person or a vehicle, or to require another person or a driver of a vehicle
to take evasive action to avoid physical contact. Acts authorized as an
exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest, and
acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Street Use Ordinance,
Chapters 15.02 through 15.50 of the Seattle Municipal Code, shall not
constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

5. "Public place" means an area generally visible to public view and
includes alleys, bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas,
sidewalks and streets open to the general public, including those that serve
food or drink or provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to
buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them.

B. A person is guilty of pedestrian interference if, in a public place, he
or she intentionally:

1. Obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic; or

2. Aggressively begs.

C. Pedestrian interference is a misdemeanor.
More...
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM
16
The only reason Burgess proposed this is that the DSA actually wanted to chase all panhandlers (read "non-customers") completely out of downtown, Pioneer Square primarily, and as Burgess himself said, this is a compromise. He's running for Mayor; he needs Downtown support. Baconcat's right; the current law covers it completely, but the DSA wants a second law to protect the tourists. Looney left ISN'T right; this ordinance doesn't have "majority voter[sic] support." The only voters are the City Council; we don't have a chance to vote on it, and the only Council arm that hasn't been successfully twisted is Nick Licata's. 8-1 probably in support of Burgess as our next mayor.
Posted by sarah68 on April 14, 2010 at 11:11 AM
17
@16,

Has any polling been done on it?

The fair minded majority of citizens can overturn this at the polls. And we should.


I'm sure that'll happen.
Posted by keshmeshi on April 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM
elenchos 18
That HRC Report (PDF) is truly a hoot to read and I encourage everyone to do so. If you're stumped as to why it's being ignored, read it for yourself. See if you can spot all the logical fallacies! Bonus points for adding up the total non sequiturs and tangents that fly in from left field!

He Dominic, I seem to have lost track of the list of groups that support the aggressive solicitation ordinance. Could I trouble you to post that again? I know you've already done so, I don't know, zero times, but maybe just once more? Thanks!

Keep on keepin' it real, Dominic.
Posted by elenchos on April 14, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Dominic Holden 19

My pleasure, Elenchos. I posted about the many groups that testified in favor of the bill in March (you were the first person to comment on that post).
Posted by Dominic Holden on April 14, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Baconcat 20
@18: For the sake of transparency, elenchos, tell me how many of the supporters are also members of the DSA: http://www.downtownseattle.com/content/a…

Moreover, you have no grasp on the difference between a civil and a criminal infraction and what happens in the course of enforcing either, so you say "IT'S A NON-SEQUITUR!".
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM
seandr 21
@15 - Don't be lame. You asked me this a few days ago, and I replied that I think the current law IS adequate.

Your turn. Do your politics permit you to feel any concern or empathy for merchants?
Posted by seandr on April 14, 2010 at 12:21 PM
22
Business = BAD
Bums and Black Thugs = GOOD
Posted by Seattle white-guilt liberal progressive "logic" on April 14, 2010 at 12:21 PM
23
Exactly, #6 - it's a big concern and has been for some time, and a big thank you to Burgess for further addressing it.

And thanks for that link Elenchos - it is a hoot. This ordinance will provide a means to remove people from the street who really, really don't belong there and is long overdue.
Posted by Reader1 on April 14, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Baconcat 24
@21: Well, being partnered to one and having grown up in a family-run business in a downtown core, sure I do. But there's no proof that this ordinance is needed to accomplish anything like you're insinuating. Nobody has come out with a non-partisan poll regarding panhandling (they just asked "DO YOU THINK IT'S BAD AND PROBLEMATIC? CHECK Y/N"), nor has any economic impact statement been prepared (and there never will be one).

And, I dunno, it's been a reasonably good year downtown for the future Mrs. Baconcat's store, so I'm pretty sure this PLAGUE OF HOMELESS AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLERS THAT NEED TO BE THROWN IN JAIL IMMEDIATELY is a bit overblown, but I won't speak for him.

If you want, I'll get behind a proclamation of "SMALL BUSINESS APPRECIATION DAY".
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Baconcat 25
@21: Also, lol @ you using the "you must hate freedom" argument.
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM
elenchos 26
Downtown business interests, Dominic? Is that all?

Like the Union Gospel Mission? I guess all they care about are their real estate holdings and their boutique storefront in Westlake Plaza. Oh, and that monied bastion of Seattle capitalism, the Downtown Emergency Service Center. It's all about the bottom line with those people, huh Dominic? And don't get me started on the YWCA and the YMCA and Plymouth Housing Group.

Seems like every time somebody wants to do some good in Seattle the BIAW and the chamber of commerce types all gather in a smoke filled room with the YMCA and Union Gospel Mission and all those other downtown business interests and fuck it up for everyone with their greed.

Thanks for bringing all that to light, Dominic. Super reporting, as always.
Posted by elenchos on April 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM
27
Leftists support anything that helps dismantle civilization.. and are hostile to anything that supports it…. once you understand that, you understand their seemingly inconsistent stances on things like religion.
Posted by Bums + Black Thugs = liberal paradise!!! on April 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Baconcat 28
@26: elenchos, be more transparent and tell us more about the boards of these supporters you cite. Then tell us a bit about whether or not the organizations themselves are part of the DSA.
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 1:15 PM
29
Service providers like DESC and YWCA have probably signed on to the proposal AS A WHOLE, particularly in respect to parts of the plan that increase social services for the homeless. As has been pointed out elsewhere, most folks on all sides of this debate support most of the proposal -- more cops, more services. My guess is that in exchange for these benefits a handful of service providers have agreed to stay mum on the panhandling provision.
Posted by Inverarity on April 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM
seandr 30
@25 - Hate freedom argument? Sorry, no idea what you are talking about.

I'm actually stepping back from this particular argument (which strikes me as little more than a Rorschach test) and trying to get a sense of where you are coming from. Thanks for the reply.
Posted by seandr on April 14, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Baconcat 31
@30: "If you don't support this, why, you must hate business!"

I'm telling you this bill is unnecessary and a completely incorrect approach that will create far more problems than it intends to solve. And I've maintained that from the get-go. Trying to say I'm anti-business is stupid, trying to insist this thing is harmless is stupid.
Posted by Baconcat on April 14, 2010 at 2:35 PM
32
Let me get this straight, you want to fine a person with money, who clearly has no money thus they panhandle, so the fine money can go into government coffers and that person has a criminal record that makes it hard for them to gain further assistance to get off of the streets?! What kind of idiosyncrasy is that! The correct approach is to find that persons real needs and help them out. Society is too quick to take peoples rights away because it's lost the ability to reason and put themselves in that persons shoes.Constitutionally I fail to find any grounds for such a law being made. In fact I could cite for the opposite. The person on the street panhandling is affirming their right to the liberty to pursue happiness their way. You have the choice to say "no" or to help them. There are laws already on the books for such things so to add to them is redundant and adds a measure of unjust cruelty placed on one who's already down. I know, rather than cater to the business owners, have them all pay into a fund to relocate and help out the panhandlers. After all it seems to be their problem and catering to an exclusive group be it panhandlers or business owners should be done between the groups, not more laws.
Next it will be "throw that person in jail because the color red that they wear gives me a headache!"...and that person thrown in jail just may be YOU!
Posted by gypsyb on April 14, 2010 at 9:21 PM
33
"I haven’t looked at the data that is supposed to substantiate [the bill]," says Conlin, asked about the commission report that debunks claims in the bill. "But what I am hearing is that there are people who perceive street disorder, and that is problematic. I don't know about connection to more serious crime."


If anyone's engaging in aggressive panhandling, it's fuckwads like this who get paid 6 figures on our dime and can't even bothered to take the time to examine the details behind the shit they support.

I thought the reason for having a representative democracy was because we can't all devote the time and resources to research the issues and make informed decisions. Turns out, neither can they.

I say we all aggressively panhandle the city council for our tax money back.
Posted by madcap on April 15, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy