Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, April 19, 2010

Before the Vote

Posted by on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Good-sized crowd in the City Council Chambers, where the city council will vote on the aggressive-solicitation bill in a bit:

crowd_in_council_chambers.jpg

And here are Council Members Tim Burgess and Mike O'Brien on the dais:

burgess_and_obrien.jpg

 

Comments (25) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Someone should restrain Dominic for his own good. Given his rage on this issue, he may do something he regrets.
Posted by joobus on April 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM
gloomy gus 2
That photo is begging for MS Paint.
Posted by gloomy gus on April 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM
doesurmindglow 3
Ignore @1, Dominic. Your reporting, while seemingly opinionated, has been fair, and I'd like to hear more about what goes down.
Posted by doesurmindglow on April 19, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Joe Szilagyi 4
ECB over on Publicola is saying Obrien voted no? Whats going on?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on April 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Cook 5
@4: will vote no. the vote hasn't happened yet. burgess is speaking right now. hear him embarrass himself here: http://www.seattlechannel.org/viewer_liv…
Posted by Cook on April 19, 2010 at 3:10 PM
Cook 6
licata is speaking now, and is showing seattle why we voted to reelect him. thanks, nick.
Posted by Cook on April 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Cook 7
and no one clapped for burgess, but the room erupted in applause for licata. now harrell is smacking down the law as well
Posted by Cook on April 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Will in Seattle 8
Looks like a bunch of elitist millionaires and their employees to me.

Did anyone check their Seattle citizenship papers at the door and look for the barcode on the back of their heads?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 19, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Will in Seattle 9
Hey, is there an online poll at Publicola or Seattle Channel on this?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM
gloomy gus 10
Cook, thanks for the link.
Posted by gloomy gus on April 19, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Cook 11
@the stranger: why aren't the council deliberations being covered? after all the coverage over the past few weeks, i thought that this would be pretty much live slogged.
Posted by Cook on April 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM
elenchos 12
Oh my god if O'Brien votes no and McGinn vetoes, the most important bill ever in the world will fail! It's the end of the world! Without this law Seattle tomorrow will be exactly like it is today. Unbearable.

Seriously though. I hope now somebody proposes actually doing something. Like if you want outreach and services and cops on patrol, stop talking and fund outreach and services and hiring cops. Talking about how you'd like more of that stuff without funding it amounts to doing nothing.
Posted by elenchos on April 19, 2010 at 3:42 PM
gloomy gus 13
And O'Brien's a no.
Posted by gloomy gus on April 19, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Cook 14
@12: shut up. when the bill looked like it would pass, you were all smarmy at everyone here. now that it will be vetoed and only have 5 votes in favor, you change your tune. i usually find being rude on anonymous internet boards the lowest of the low (i'm talking about myself, here), but your behavior warrants it.

also, o'brien just committed to vote no, and the crowd, once again, erupted in applause. no one has clapped for any of the "yes" votes.
Posted by Cook on April 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Posted by seandr on April 19, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Joe Szilagyi 16
@12 That's on the council if they have the stones to reallocate funds for police. Take them off of marijuana enforcement and take six cops each per shift (in random rotations) from six neighborhoods/areas and reallocate them to two each extra on Pioneer Square, two each from 1st to 4th on Pike and Pine, and two each to Belltown for starters if they're worried about funding them right off the bat. Dedicate them exclusively to foot patrol and specifically on the things they're worried about, with panhandling and scary people.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on April 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Cook 17
wow, conlin just said "some of the people sending emails to me may not have understood what they were sending." what a jerk. douche move, dude.
Posted by Cook on April 19, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Cook 18
also, don't eat at anchovies and olives, union, how to cook a wolf, or tavolata. the owner of the restaurants is pro-arresting the homeless because they get rid of business
Posted by Cook on April 19, 2010 at 3:50 PM
19
If McGinn vetoes, does that put him on the hook for doing something about the aggressive panhandlers downtown?

I'll pretend for a second I think this bill was as heavy-handed as Dominic says it is. Does this mean the concerns of the downtown businesses and tourists and people who feel uncomfortable downtown should be dismissed?

I know Will thinks everyone who disagrees with him is an elitist millionaire or a crony thereof. Aren't they also a part of the city?

Before the veto, the opposition to this bill didn't have a face. Now its face is Mayor McGinn. He has gone on the record saying the crime and safety concerns are real but this bill doesn't address them. What will he do in its stead?

My money is on not a damned thing.
Posted by six shooter on April 19, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Baconcat 20
@19: McGinn told the council what he prefers. It's up to them to act on that.

McGinn's got hundreds of activists on his side and the support of many organizations if the council doesn't uphold their legislative duty. If the council does truly care about the vitality of the downtown core, they'll gut the citation and enforcement aspect and send it forward with the improvements to downtown patrols and social services funding.
Posted by Baconcat on April 19, 2010 at 4:04 PM
elenchos 21
Bye, Cook.
Posted by elenchos on April 19, 2010 at 4:07 PM
Fnarf 22
@19:
I know Will thinks

No, you're mistaken there.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on April 19, 2010 at 4:11 PM
23
@20--

Doesn't the council need to budget for increased foot patrol downtown? Haven't they already passed a budget this year? Isn't the city facing a huge deficit? Hasn't McGinn promised to lay off 300 people? Isn't he talking about closing fire stations?

And in light of all this, you say all he has to do is ask the city council for increased foot patrols and they magically happen?
Posted by six shooter on April 19, 2010 at 5:57 PM
24
@20, and those hundreds of activists are going to fund any of this HOW? The Mayor can't even do it. So his "preferences" are just that. He can't back any of it up, he can't fund it, he can't do diddly squat about it. In fact, according to everything he's said, it's going to get WORSE due to his budget cuts. And nice... "McGinn told the council what he prefers. It's up to them to act on that." While he, what, holds thousands of town halls to make his day-planner look full? And since when does the City Council take marching orders from the mayor? Never, since I've lived here. And that's a long time. This will be hilarious in three years, when people are so fed up with his do-nothing obstructionism that they elect a Mark Sidran x 100 to clean up the city.
Posted by Koo Bok Og Nya on April 19, 2010 at 8:27 PM
elenchos 25
Could just pull cops away from somewhere else. What could go wrong?
Posted by elenchos on April 19, 2010 at 8:45 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