Seattle's mayor LIKES aggressive panhandling?

[Deeko]

Seattle council passes panhandling ordinance
The Seattle City Council has passed an ordinance to ban aggressive panhandling, but Mayor Mike McGinn says he will veto the measure.

The Associated Press

SEATTLE —
The Seattle City Council has passed an ordinance to ban aggressive panhandling, but Mayor Mike McGinn says he will veto the measure.

The council passed the measure Monday on a 5-4 vote. But an override of a veto by the mayor would require six council votes. McGinn has said the city already has an aggressive panhandling law.

The measure would ban begging near parking meters or within 15 feet of someone using an ATM. It also would ban threatening language or gestures. Violators could be fined $50.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011649115_apwaseattlepanhandling2ndldwritethru.html

Every time I read news about this guy, I'm happy I don't live in the city anymore...

 

[xj0hnx]

What is the current law against aggressive panhandling?

 

[Linflas]

What a sad state journalism is in these days. That story provides absolutely nothing that allows a reader to form an informed opinion on this one way or another. As xj0hnx points out we have no information on what this law changes regarding the previous law, or even why the Mayor is opposed to the changes.

 

[Deeko]

The current law (http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~archives/Ordinances/Ord_117104.pdf) basically says you can't obstruct pedestrian/vehicular traffic or "aggressively beg". The new law says you can't beg near ATMs and parking meters or use threatening language/gestures.

 

[daniel49]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011649115_apwaseattlepanhandling2ndldwritethru.html

Every time I read news about this guy, I'm happy I don't live in the city anymore...

Its Seattle, long known for its clueless mayors.

 

[Deeko]

What a sad state journalism is in these days. That story provides absolutely nothing that allows a reader to form an informed opinion on this one way or another. As xj0hnx points out we have no information on what this law changes regarding the previous law, or even why the Mayor is opposed to the changes.

Longer version that I actually read in the paper, which apparently Bing News search doesn't know how to find:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011649850_panhandling20m.html

Basically, people don't like it because they don't think panhandlers are related to crime increases, and that this is just an attack on the poor because they can't afford the fine/make it to court regarding the fine.

 

[xj0hnx]

The current law (http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~archives/Ordinances/Ord_117104.pdf) basically says you can't obstruct pedestrian/vehicular traffic or "aggressively beg". The new law says you can't beg near ATMs and parking meters or use threatening language/gestures.

So it wasn't illegal to threaten people, or use threatening gestures before? I'm all for cleaning up the streets, but why not amend laws already on the books instead of making new ones? Was he against something in the new law specifically, or against a redundant law? And how is him being against a redundant law translate to him "liking" aggressive panhandling? I'm against hate crime laws, but I don't like murder, or racism.

 

[Deeko]

Its an ordinence that states it is amending a current section of city code - it IS amending the current law. Its adding more things to the list of things that are covered under the aggressive panhandling law.

Now - of course its illegal to threaten someone now. In fact, its a criminal offense. Violating the panhandling law is a civil infraction, like a parking ticket. All those saying this is just "attacking the homeless" (which, while that short article glosses over it, is what many people, including the mayor, have a problem with) are ignoring that fact. Would they rather the homeless be getting hit with criminal charges that go on their record than a simple civil infraction?

 

[Gardener]

Laws about aggressive panhandling are already on the books, the failure in the system is Seattle PD's lack of foot patrols and general understaffing. Seattle has the lowest number of sworn police officers per cap of any large city in the country.

We don't need another unenforceable law on the books, especially feel-good garbage promoted by newly elected councilman Tim Burgess, a guy who is already running for mayor.

We need more cops, and more patrols, not some bullshit ticketing law for homeless people.

 

[Deeko]

How do you propose to pay for these extra cops you want, given the city and state's budget issues?

Also, this law is plenty enforcable, if you want to complain that we're adding too many useless laws that target the wrong people, complain about the city council adding tree ordinences to prevent public schools from building new wings if it involves cutting down trees on the property they already own.

At any rate, good, I hope someone else is campaigning for mayor. McGinn was a mistake before he was elected, and he's only proving that again and again.

 

[Gardener]

How do you propose to pay for these extra cops you want, given the city and state's budget issues?

Also, this law is plenty enforcable, if you want to complain that we're adding too many useless laws that target the wrong people, complain about the city council adding tree ordinences to prevent public schools from building new wings if it involves cutting down trees on the property they already own.

At any rate, good, I hope someone else is campaigning for mayor. McGinn was a mistake before he was elected, and he's only proving that again and again.

lol @ the republican drummer boy.

 

[Deeko]

lol @ the republican drummer boy.

To whom are you referring?

 

[ichy]

If it were up to me panhandling in all forms would be illegal. I despise bums who beg for change, I'm already paying insane (2.3%!) property taxes to support them and their fellow parasites.