Tacoma's panhandling ban: Where did they all go?
It's not clear, but the begging has stopped in the City of Destiny. Could it work in Seattle?
Panhandlers. They're occasionally intimidating. They're often a nuisance. They're almost always an eyesore. And the problem only seems to be getting worse.
Is it time to just ban them already?
Don't look so shocked. Tacoma has done just that. The City of Destiny has decided it doesn't want to be the City of Destitute. Tacoma's message to panhandlers: Quit using our sidewalks for your soliciting.
"It was growing by leaps and bounds," says Tacoma City Council member Connie Ladenburg. In response, she sponsored a begging ban last June as chair of the Public Safety Committee. Panhandlers "were on every single corner" of major intersections, she says.
To be technical, Tacoma's law isn't an absolute ban – that wouldn't be constitutional. But it's pretty darn close.
Consider the elements. Panhandling is not allowed within 15 feet of the following places citywide: building entrances, ATMs, bus stops, parked cars, pay phones, gas stations, car washes, and outdoor cafes. It's not allowed at any time on buses. And you can't panhandle at intersections, freeway ramps, or in any way directed toward traffic. Finally, just to show that begging really isn't welcome in Tacoma, it's prohibited everywhere from dusk to dawn. Period.
It's a heavy set of restrictions that, while still allowing panhandling in very limited circumstances, has put an enormous damper on street solicitation in just the past few months.
"It's extremely dramatic," Landenburg says with some surprise at her law's rapid success. "One day we'd see a lot of people on the street corners, and then next day they were gone. It appears that it was almost overnight."
That was the same reaction I heard from more than a dozen people I talked to recently and randomly in front of the University of Washington Tacoma campus along Pacific Avenue.
Indeed, I didn't see any panhandlers during a full day spent walking and driving around the city. Not one.
So where had they all gone? Jail?
Nope. The city attorney who drafted the ban notes, somewhat proudly, that there has been only one arrest since the law went into effect in June. Presumably, the police have simply warned those who have been found soliciting to pack it up, "or else." The penalty is up to 90 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines. That's a lot of nickels and dimes.
There are reports that at least some of the activity has moved, not muted. Landenburg notes an anecdotal increase in panhandling on freeway ramps outside the city.
Pushing something this sweeping would seem controversial. One would expect lots of acrimonious City Council debates and attempts to stall the effort. But apparently none of that drama unfolded in Tacoma. Lawmakers passed the restrictions unanimously.
Of course, not everyone is happy about it.
"Tacoma has what I think is the most stringent anti-panhandling ordinance that's been passed in the country," says Tim Harris, executive director of Real Change, the homeless publishing and advocacy organization based in Seattle. "The main thing that it does is give police a tool to harass people who are poor," he says.
Asked if it would make sense in Seattle, Harris gets quite passionate. "Really, nothing about panhandling has changed," he insists, trying to counter the impression that street-begging is burgeoning. "What has changed is the city. We have a downtown condo boom." Those moving into these expensive places, Harris believes, bring their "suburban comforts" and attitudes with them. That's happened in Tacoma, as well, he argues.
Similar panhandling restrictions have been enacted in recent years in a handful of other U.S. cities, including Dallas, Philadelphia, and even San Francisco. None, though, has all the elements of Tacoma's ban. It seems we might be in the midst of a new round of "clean-up" as major cities across the country push downtown living to revitalize urban cores, reverse sprawl, and encourage walk-to-work lifestyles.
As of yet, no other city in Washington has jumped into bed with Tacoma on this one. But there have been a handful of voyeurs. Spokane seems tempted. Bellevue and Issaquah, too. And, yes, even Seattle.
"I think we should have a dialogue about what we can do here," says City Attorney Tom Carr. "I hear from businesses that they are having trouble because of people sleeping in front of their businesses and panhandling in front of their businesses."
Carr isn't ready to accept the full menu of Tacoma's restrictions, but he would make at least one a la carte selection right now: a nighttime ban. "I think it's a reasonable extension of our aggressive begging statute," he says.
The "aggressive begging" statute, in case you don't remember, is a legacy of Mark Sidran, Carr's predecessor during the 1990s. He successfully pushed that, as well as a no-sitting rule on downtown sidewalks during business hours. Is Tom Carr ready to make another run at civility?
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Dec 4, 6:16 a.m. inappropriate
Same panhandlers for years: A follow-up article would be nice as it focused on the favorite specific spots of panhandlers and Spare Change sellers--especially the spots in front of private businesses such as grocery stores. Capitol Hill has an entourage of folks who want the 15th Ave east and Broadway spots and they seem to have designated 'shift' times. They actually leave when the girl scouts do their cookie sales. Never give $$$$ to panhandlers and always look for a free 'Spare Change' copy. I see some guilt-riddens give $$$ but not take the paper. I would support the 'Tacoma Way' on this issue. Stop the scams!!
Posted Tue, Dec 4, 8:14 a.m. inappropriate
Something to think about: I live close to Downtown Tacoma, and we certainly have plenty of the panhandling sort, but it has never been a problem here. I am concerned about the traffic in my alley, in part from freeway located encampments.
That alley is on a route to a local mini-market which sells fortified alcohol - there is a ban on that in Downtown and Hilltop, and its expansion in this area - the ridge south of the Dome, is scheduled for the 11th, in one week. Local activist Pat McGregor is generally credited for that wise move.
Nothing against C.R., but I don't think his experience translates well down here - a story on the current doings of Mark Sidran might have been more appropriate.
As for Real Change, I've seen nothing to show they are doing anything wrong. It is very rare I make a purchase, but that's not the same as being opposed. Methinks a piece from a literate real change salesperson might well have been more illustrative, even if biased against the law.
On the subject of Story ideas, the Dome District, located next to the Sounder/Link Transit Hub, is an area on the rise, hopefully seeing the spreading benefits of the revitalization of Downtown, which definitely has seen its share of upscale Condo dwellers. But that too, is another story, isn't it?
-Douglas Tooley
Tacoma
Posted Tue, Dec 4, 11:16 a.m. inappropriate
Anecdotally, Things Are Worse Near Wright Park Now: ...at least, according to this thread on the Exit 133 forums. I'm only ever there during the day an haven't really seen it. It might have a lot to do with the construction stopping normal activity in the park, hopefully it will improve when the work is done.
I think Tacoma worries about it's perception a lot. (And we should) This is probably why the law is so stringent. I'm glad to hear there haven't been many arrests, it seems to be functioning as an effective deterrent without overtaxing the legal system or social services.
Posted Tue, Dec 4, 11:50 a.m. inappropriate
PLEASE ban the scourge of Seattle: You go, CR. Bring it on. Perhaps, if our lame city council can't enact a ban, we can do it by initiative. I may be considered a liberal by my more conservative colleagues, but I am sick and tired of dealing with panhandlers everywhere I go. Too many times, I chose to drive to Southcenter to shop, removing my tax dollars from the city where I live. As a female, I'm sick of worrying about the mentally ill folks and the drug addicts in the central downtown core of Seattle. And as a huge fan of Mark Sidran, I miss the intelligent dialogue he provided on these delicate subjects, dialogues he engaged while sitting on the board of the Downtown Emergency Service Center that proved Sidran was seeking solutions.
Once again, this story proves, as have many before, that innovation and leadership is coming out of Tacoma. Seattle is just full of hot air blowing over Kyoto.
Posted Tue, Dec 4, 1:46 p.m. inappropriate
Give me a break: "'The current council doesn't seem to be that interested in public-safety issues.' He offered up as evidence the fact they weren't willing to adopt a license requirement for nightclubs."
The council is quite interested in public safety as evidenced by the legislation they passed putting more police officers on the street. Talk to any cop or look at any study - increase the number of street cops and crime goes down.
What they are not interested in is a law-enforcement strategy that Carr swiped from the plot of "Revenge of the Nerds". The overwhelming majority of beatings, shootings, and knifings do not take place in night clubs, and they have been happening with increasing frequency since Carr took office. Time to elect a city attorney who doesn't let his personal issues screw up his priorities.
Posted Tue, Dec 4, 6:38 p.m. inappropriate
Applause for our City Attorney: Trying to get the thugs, gangsters and club trash out of downtown
Seattle is on the first step.
For far too long Seattle has tolerated drug usage and that liberalism is
only reinforced by such state social programs as replacing heroin with
methedone and then calling the druggies 'reformed' .
So, say in the international district, what is seen on a nightly basis is the
drug dealers, customers and those whose life course was over a long time
ago, ruined by - you guessed it - drugs .
A person has to wonder what Sean's REAL agenda is ?
Posted Wed, Dec 5, 1:11 p.m. inappropriate
Yet, I don't mind buying Real Change, and I do so whenever I see a vendor. It's a legitimate publication, and those who sell it are actually working to earn money, so why not support the effort even if the Real Change editorial policy is too bizarre for words?
What is disturbing, though, is the attitude exemplified by the following quote from an encounter Douglas had with a freeway-on-ramp panhandler:
"What about the unintended consequences? Just the other day I asked a homeless man waving a sign near an Interstate 5 on-ramp what he thought of Tacoma's law, which bans his behavior there. 'People will be doing other things, I guarantee you that. Breaking into cars and garages and whatever they can do,' he warned. 'This gives people an option.'
And going at it from another angle, he said, 'if they outlaw it, it's not only encroaching on our right to panhandle, it's encroaching on the public's right to give who they choose to, instead of ... non-profits.'"
I love threats of violence and property damage, don't you? And the assertion of a "right" to panhandle and the high-minded defense of guilt-tripping the public into giving to panhandler's as a matter of "choice."
Just under a couple years ago, there was a huge public fight over something called Safe Harbors, a data collection tool designed to keep tabs on homeless services programs, their receipients, and program effectiveness. SHARE/WHEEL, an operator of several shelters as well as Tent City 3 and 4 initially refused to participate and threatened to create a whole slew of new tent citiies throughout King County rather than comply with this federally mandated program.
Safe Harbors was intended to promote accountability in the use of public funds and determine what programs and services work and what don't. SHARE, however, despite its then receipt of $270K in City of Seattle funds responded not by cooperating, but with threats designed to intimidate and create an atmosphere of anarchy and fear.
In the final analysis, SHARE was forced to cave, but only a little bit. Once again, those brave defenders of the commonweal, our elected public offiicials, succumbed to threats by continuing to fund SHARE. Something similar will probably happen if anyone tries to address the issue of public panhandling in Seattle.
Homelessness is a serious issue deserving of serious responses. King County's 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness won't make a real dent in the problem if the politics of extortion continue to be successful. Continuing to enable panhandlers and groups like SHARE by giving a pass to threats that, were they from any other constituency in Seattle (save, perhaps, pro-sports teams) would produce public outrage and backlash, only serve to give the lie to pious public pronouncements that, "Seatlle cares." If Seattle did - if it truly cared - then it would seriously consider tough love measures that demand responsibility, accountability, and self-respect.
Not gonna hold my breath on this one, either, however.
The Piper
Posted Wed, Dec 5, 2:20 p.m. inappropriate
My REAL agenda: Since you ask, steptoe.fan, my real agenda is for our mayor and city attorney to get off their asses and deal with the increasing crime problem, as opposed to playing political games, picking petty fights with the council, and harassing innocent citizens. Too much to ask?
Carr's publicity stunt focused on people sneaking guns into clubs, which is, statistically speaking, a trivial issue. Of all of the recent shootings that have taken place in our city, one occurred inside a nightclub (Sugar on Capitol Hill), after which the owners voluntarily shut it down. This happened after Carr's sting, which shows just what a useless waste of law enforcement resources it was.
Meanwhile, in the last 2 years there has been an alarming increase in shootings within a square mile of my house, including 14 rounds fired off 20 minutes after I had strolled by with my 2 year old son in a baby jogger. None of these incidents had anything to do with nightclubs. Carr's political games may win him votes among the ignorant, but they do absolutely nothing to quell violence in the neighborhoods, and frankly, they don't help downtown either.
A while ago, a veteran police officer attended one of our block watch meetings and pointed out that the number of street cops in our precinct was at an all time low. He encouraged us to make some noise to get more officers in the area (which we did, along with many other neighborhood groups). Lo and behold, several months later, Steinbrueck announced a plan to hire a massive number of new officers. Since then, police responsiveness in our neighborhood has been amazing. The last shooting incident happened over 6 months ago, and the first car was there in 30 seconds. Within 2 minutes, 5 more cars were on the scene to help cuff and stuff the perp. Not long after that, there was a well publicized sting that put 50 drug dealers behind bars and confiscated dozens of illegally owned guns. Hooray! Driving around these days, it seems like there are patrol cars everywhere, and guess what, the neighborhood has returned back to normal as a result. That's how you prevent crime.
I don't do nightclubs anymore, but my wife and I regularly go to downtown and belltown for dinner and a show. I'm always amazed at the utter lack of police presence there. Go to any hotspot in New York or Philly, in contrast, and you'll see cops hanging out on the corner, cops walking the sidewalks, cops in cars. Thanks to all the cops, innocent fun loving people get to enjoy a safe and thriving nightlife. We shouldn't settle for anything less in Seattle.
I hate the thugs just as much as you. Trust me, if the city attorney would stop picking his nose and actually get tough on crime rather than honest working people, we wouldn't have the problem we do now.
Posted Thu, Dec 6, 2:45 a.m. inappropriate
Don't like homeless people?: Don't give them money. Simple. No new laws needed.
Posted Thu, Dec 6, 2:56 a.m. inappropriate
RE: PLEASE ban the scourge of Seattle: While I totally feel your pain on the downtown safety issues (I'm a Regrade-area resident myself), the idea that we can simply "ban the scourge of Seattle" seems really unrealistic. Untreated mental illness is a big issue, what with federal and state dollars shrinking. Drug addicts, well, that's a tough one too. More treatment means more dollars. Our policy of housing these people in jail isn't working. Maybe banning panhandling could work... for a while. Who knows? I'm watching Tacoma's efforts for more info.
Posted Mon, Jul 28, 7:26 a.m. inappropriate
A good news: I am new in this blogger so help me in finding out new information...
Alaska Treatment Centers