I'm not so sure I agree with Ms. Marrone's statement here, but I think she does have a valid concern about initiating panhandling bans in general. Panhandling is an activity that is driven by a need. We ought to be working to remove the need.
Many readers and local residents will recall Nashville's decision to create an "anti-panhandling" ordinance a couple of years ago. Several contentious meetings occurred as advocates, city officials and local business owners jockeyed for the dominating final opinion, which turned out to be a watered down version of the original, very strict law.
I would argue, as I think would most of the staff and vendors of The Contributor, that the newspaper has had more of an impact on curbing aggressive panhandlers in the downtown area than any law ever has.
This is because most of the aggressive panhandlers didn't like the competiton, since paper vendors were actually selling a real and valuable product damned near alongside the panhandlers, making them look like...well, panhandlers.
Folks passing by who felt the need to give invariably chose those who were actually working versus those who were simply begging, and it didn't take local businesses long to notice that when vendors were present, aggressive panhandlers disappeared.
This created a climate of acceptance for vendors that continues today, and because we trained our vendors to always be courteous, respectful and non-aggressive, they posed no threat or concern to business owners. In fact, for some businesses, it was a way to show their support in assisting those on the street who were working to get off of it, and it greatly improved relationships among the many of the homeless and the downtown community.
Panhandling is a fairly complex issues when you get right down to it, and for the most part, the majority of people experiencing homelessness don't panhandle at all, let alone "aggressively." When they do panhandle, it's often for a short period and there are certain "hotspots" that those "in the know" know well, and those spots are used heavily.
Some speak out against Seattle council plan to crack down on panhandling
Downtown business-community members said tourists and locals avoid downtown because they are afraid of and intimidated by people asking for money. But many people said it's poverty that makes people uncomfortable and the city should spend more money helping the poor and homeless instead.
Seattle Times staff reporter
Kate Marrone said her husband was on his way to work when a panhandler in Belltown punched him in the face.
Despite that, Marrone testified Wednesday against a proposed new Seattle city ordinance to crack down on aggressive solicitation.
She told Seattle City Council members that a new ordinance making certain intimidating behavior a civil infraction fosters fear of poor people and wouldn't have helped her husband.
She joined nearly two hours of testimony on both sides of Councilmember Tim Burgess' proposal before the Public Safety and Education Committee.
The ordinance, which may come up for a council committee vote April 7, sparked debate about panhandlers' civil rights and whether downtown really has a problem with aggressive panhandling.
Downtown business-community members, who largely support Burgess' proposal, said tourists and locals avoid downtown because they are afraid of and intimidated by people asking for money.
Many people who testified against the ordinance said it's poverty that makes people uncomfortable and the city should spend more money helping the poor and homeless instead.
"Just stop and allow yourself to actually imagine if we could actually help homeless people instead of trying to fight homeless people," said Shy Wit, who is homeless and stays in Tent City IV.
Tim Harris, the executive director of the Real Change newspaper, said the proposed ordinance would erode free speech and attempts to hide its "real motive" to "clamp down on panhandling" through "squishy, open-to-interpretation terminology."
Burgess' ordinance would include panhandlers and people soliciting for signatures or selling things on the sidewalk.
The ordinance would make it a criminal offense to solicit someone using a cash machine or parking pay station. It also bars intimidating behavior, such as following people or using abusive language.
"I deal with thousands of customers and people a year, and the fear and intimidation that is felt is real," said Alan Booth, who manages Tom Douglas' restaurants downtown.
Booth said the city should seek a solution that balances the "tolerance that we've always had in this city" for people who are struggling with the rights of people to enjoy Pike Place Market and other parts of downtown without feeling intimidated.
Burgess' proposal has the support of the Downtown Seattle Association, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, some advocates for the poor, and from the police. It is part of a package that includes putting more cops on the street and creating more housing.
Interim Police Chief John Diaz said Wednesday that dealing specifically with aggressive panhandling will give people a "greater sense of safety."
Council members at Wednesday's meeting expressed some skepticism about the proposal.
Councilmember Bruce Harrell said he's never been aggressively panhandled.
"I didn't know if there's a crisis around the ATM machines and I just didn't get the memo on that. I didn't experience that," he said.
"What may be intimidating to one person ... may not be intimidating to another person," said Councilmember Nick Licata. "Where do you draw the line?"
Seattle Times staff reporter Steve Miletich contributed to this report.
Emily Heffter: 206-464-8246 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 206-464-8246 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or eheffter@seattletimes.com
Despite that, Marrone testified Wednesday against a proposed new Seattle city ordinance to crack down on aggressive solicitation.
She told Seattle City Council members that a new ordinance making certain intimidating behavior a civil infraction fosters fear of poor people and wouldn't have helped her husband.
She joined nearly two hours of testimony on both sides of Councilmember Tim Burgess' proposal before the Public Safety and Education Committee.
The ordinance, which may come up for a council committee vote April 7, sparked debate about panhandlers' civil rights and whether downtown really has a problem with aggressive panhandling.
Downtown business-community members, who largely support Burgess' proposal, said tourists and locals avoid downtown because they are afraid of and intimidated by people asking for money.
Many people who testified against the ordinance said it's poverty that makes people uncomfortable and the city should spend more money helping the poor and homeless instead.
"Just stop and allow yourself to actually imagine if we could actually help homeless people instead of trying to fight homeless people," said Shy Wit, who is homeless and stays in Tent City IV.
Tim Harris, the executive director of the Real Change newspaper, said the proposed ordinance would erode free speech and attempts to hide its "real motive" to "clamp down on panhandling" through "squishy, open-to-interpretation terminology."
Burgess' ordinance would include panhandlers and people soliciting for signatures or selling things on the sidewalk.
The ordinance would make it a criminal offense to solicit someone using a cash machine or parking pay station. It also bars intimidating behavior, such as following people or using abusive language.
"I deal with thousands of customers and people a year, and the fear and intimidation that is felt is real," said Alan Booth, who manages Tom Douglas' restaurants downtown.
Burgess' proposal has the support of the Downtown Seattle Association, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, some advocates for the poor, and from the police. It is part of a package that includes putting more cops on the street and creating more housing.
Interim Police Chief John Diaz said Wednesday that dealing specifically with aggressive panhandling will give people a "greater sense of safety."
Council members at Wednesday's meeting expressed some skepticism about the proposal.
Councilmember Bruce Harrell said he's never been aggressively panhandled.
"I didn't know if there's a crisis around the ATM machines and I just didn't get the memo on that. I didn't experience that," he said.
"What may be intimidating to one person ... may not be intimidating to another person," said Councilmember Nick Licata. "Where do you draw the line?"
Seattle Times staff reporter Steve Miletich contributed to this report.
Emily Heffter: 206-464-8246 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 206-464-8246 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or eheffter@seattletimes.com
