Tacoma's panhandling ban: Where did they all go?
"The last city attorney had a very different City Council," says Carr, acknowledging that he doesn't have the votes even for the dusk-to-dawn ban. "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 Downtown Seattle Association, which has been pushing safe and civil streets for some time, says that a panhandling ban is "not a priority" right now.
Tacoma's approach does seem like a hard sell in bleeding-heart Seattle. Does the city have the jail space, the mental-health resources, and the addiction services that would be needed if panhandling was criminalized? Surely those questions would be asked.
And 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."
It's worth some spare change just to see how this issue unfolds, don't you think?
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