Slog
News & ArtsSunday, April 18, 2010
News Mayor McGinn Sure to Veto Anti-Panhandling Bill, Force Council to Vote Again
Posted by Dominic Holden on Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Citing growing criticism and his hopes to defeat the measure, Mayor Mike McGinn will veto an aggressive-solicitation bill that the city council plans to vote on tomorrow, no matter how many council members vote for it.
“Regardless of the number of votes, I do intend to veto the bill,” McGinn says.
On Friday, it was widely reported that McGinn would only veto the bill if the vote was five-to-four. The mayor can veto any bill passed by the nine-member city council; however, the council then gets another chance to pass the bill and override the mayor’s objection (they need six votes to override a veto).
Requiring the council to vote again gives opponents a chance to erode support and try to defeat the bill. For example, former mayor Paul Schell vetoed a seven-to-one vote to repeal the Teen Dance Ordinance in 2000. While the council maintained a veto-proof majority, Schell did move one two of the votes to his side and the council could not override the veto (this sentence updated).
"I want to make my position clear, and if that allows for further public discussion of legislation perhaps one of the council members will reconsider their position," he says.
Six members of the council are expected to vote for the bill. Most notably, Mike O’Brien, who repeatedly said he opposed the bill when he ran for office last year, was expected to vote against the bill. But O’Brien now says he’s following the lead of bill sponsor, Council Member Tim Burgess.
Burgess has tried to use this legislation to demonstrate that he can unite City Hall and build consensus. Instead, the bill serves as evidence that Burgess—who misrepresented information in the bill—is becoming the most divisive politician at City Hall.
McGinn, in guaranteeing a veto, allows a growing progressive coalition to continue mounting a campaign against the bill. Four district democratic organizations (34th, 36th, 37th, and 46th District) have already passed resolutions against the measure. The 43rd District Democrats are expected to pass a similar resolution on Tuesday—if the bill passes—representing a solid block of opposition from virtually all the Democratic district groups in Seattle (the 11th District is partly in the city limits). Church groups, the ACLU, NAACP, several lawmakers, and the city’s human rights commission have also condemned the bill.
“People who have concerns have been very clear about what their concerns are,” McGinn says. “I don’t think it’s an appropriate piece of legislation."
3
4
Strip clubs, outdoor drinking, the march continues.
7
Leave it to a nation-state proclaiming in its basic doctrine the value of "liberty" — sharing, curiously, the same root as "liberal" — to assume licence over turning these English definitions completely on their head. Linguistically, that's anything but conservative or conservationist, as the venerable OED would chidingly remind us.
There be raspberries here.
11
Pretending there is wide chasm between liberals and "conservatives" over this bill is only confusing your readers and making The Stranger look silly.
If you actually read the bill, and read the package deal Burgess is proposing, and ACTUALLY TALK TO THE EXPERTS ON HOMELESSNESS (which Dominic BLATANTLY failed to do in his article - too busy looking demure, you know) it is impossible to come to Dominic's conclusions unless you are 1) insane, 2) completely paranoid or 3) just plain fucking dumb. Or I guess 4) trying to stir up controversy. I'm guessing a combination of 2 and 4.
Dominic has taken ECB's example of hyperbole and hysteria, and gone whole hog with it. In doing so, he just confuses the issue with deliberate misinformation (or "omissions of truth", as my cheating ex-boyfriend used to say when he lied). I can't think of any other reason for him to deliberately leave out the opinions of practically EVERY single Seattle organization working on homelessness and poverty in his article, or to omit the FACT that almost ALL of these organizations are members of the DSA. I know that these are very inconvenient truths for Dominic, and that he is better off ignoring them to make his point. But in doing so he just digs a hole that he can't climb out of - I think you were the one who made the apt comparison to Bush.
For whatever reason, DH is positioning himself as the leftist Bill O'Reilly - hyperbole, misinformation, truth-stretching, taunting, and outright lies. I'm curious if this is of his own volition, or if the Stranger overlords are directing him in this way. For years I thought, as another Slog commenter stated, that ECB must have a personality disorder. But now she's at Publicola, and actually does some good, solid reporting. It makes me wonder what the Stranger overlords are doing to these people. Or perhaps they're just picking up on the reporters' natural shortcomings. Either way, I'm beginning to hope that this stint is a short one for DH, because he's starting to sound like a complete lunatic - and he's only a few months into his new post.
Mc Ginn is a fool ... and Obrian want a political future ... not just the Mc Ginn bag/butt boy ...
And the Stranger is always so over the top.
This debate is so trivial ref: the real problems facing the city ...
15
Meanwhile the rest of the City will take strong action in endorsing AGAINST the Anti-Panhandling Bill, backing up the Mayor.
And now that I actually follow the link you sent, I see:
"Vote: 8-21-00: 7-1 Drago (Absent: Pageler); 9-18-00: Motion to pass over Mayor's veto failed 5-3 (Yes: Conlin, Licata, Nicastro, Steinbrueck, Wills; No: Compton, Drago, McIver; Excused: Pageler)"
So yeah. In fact, Schell's veto worked; two people jumped ship, and the repeal failed that year. They had to come back in 2002 and try again.
Speaking of hyperbole, have you actually looked at the list of organizations opposing this? In contrast to the list of heads of organizations who have come out in favor -- several of whom have made it clear that they are representing only themselves and not their orgs?
I have enormous respect for Bill Hobson and DESC and support their work greatly and have done so quite vocally over the years. I think he is flat out wrong on this, but I also understand the enormous institutional pressure he is under. I have spoken to several staff members at DESC, YWCA and Plymouth House and to a person they are upset with the position their directors have taken. This issue is quite unfortunately bringing out some fault lines among long-time allies.
22
23
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
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
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
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS