Tim Burgess
Admittedly, my first reaction to City Council member Tim Burgess’s proposal to tackle the problem of aggressive panhandling was skeptical. Seattle already has an aggressive panhandling law on the books, after all. Why not just add more police patrols to weed out troublemakers? And I was critical of the media coverage that repeatedly conflated panhandling with major crimes.
On Crosscut, Jordan Royer warned Burgess, via his experience with the Alcohol Impact Area process, that panhandling is a hot button issue that stirs up arguments, and wondered if new restrictions wouldn’t put the police in a no-win situation. Over at Real Change, Tim Harris demonstrated just the kind of pugnacious opposition that Royer predicted.
On his blog, Burgess responds to the skeptics, while first noting that only the panhandling element of his proposal is seeing much blowback:
I guess the good news is that no one has objected at all to the other four elements of my proposal: more police officers on foot patrols in neighborhood business districts, hiring more police officers so the full Neighborhood Policing Plan can be implemented, enhanced and better coordinated street outreach services to identify people in need, and more “housing first” options with support services so the chronically homeless get a place of their own.
He also says the police themselves have requested “additional tools” to deal with the problem of threatening thugs–I don’t know if that refers specifically to new legislation, but I’m willing to take Burgess’s implication at face value.
He also makes the interesting point that “this ordinance shifts the focus from criminal penalties (as with the existing aggressive begging ordinance) to a civil infraction.” According to Burgess, the swiftness and certainty of a punishment is more salient to its effectiveness than its severity. So in one of those Freakonomics-style reversals, a ticket might actually curb more bad behavior than jail time. No one likes getting a ticket, and it also removes much of the question of whether the nuisance behavior is worth all the trouble of a jail booking.
As I read his defense, I’ve come around to an agnostic stance. Much will depend upon the ordinance’s wording, and I could wish it hadn’t been framed in terms of “panhandling” at all, but safer, more civil streets are clearly Burgess’s objective, rather than sweeping away the sight of the homeless. There’s a substantial gauntlet of opposition for the ordinance yet to run, but if it makes it through, I’ll be on board with its application.
UPDATE: Interim Police Chief Diaz has this to say about the ordinance:
In the interest of service and fairness to all, we will ensure that every officer on the Seattle Police Department receives training on the ordinance before they will be authorized to enforce it. A grace period of warnings and an education campaign will precede the first issuance of infraction tickets. Infractions and arrests that result from a failure to pay will be tracked and audited. Additionally, officers will provide information on how to access social services to individuals cited for this behavior in the hopes of eliminating repeat offenses.
[…]
We would also propose that Council revisit issues related to the enforcement and effectiveness of the ordinance one year after implementation. For example, the Council may consider a sunset clause, or calling for a report after the first year.
