Council OKs “aggressive solicitation” law; mayor vows veto

The City Council just sent its official announcement about passing the so-called “aggressive solicitation” law proposed by Councilmember Tim Burgess, who promoted it during a speech to the West Seattle Chamber of Commerce at West Seattle’s Southwest Precinct last month (WSB coverage here). The vote was 5-4; voting “no” were Councilmembers Bruce Harrell, Nick Licata, Mike O’Brien and Tom Rasmussen. But five votes aren’t enough to override the veto promised by Mayor Mike McGinn (as reported by our citywide-news partners at the Seattle TImes). Read on for the council’s announcement:

The City Council voted 5-4 this afternoon to approve the aggressive solicitation ordinance (C.B. 116807). The new law makes solicitation accompanied by intimidating conduct a civil infraction with a penalty of $50 or community service.

“This legislation is about our community resetting norms of behavior on our streets,” Public Safety and Education Chair Tim Burgess said. “It’s about our city saying together we will no longer tolerate this aggressive and intimidating behavior. It protects free speech rights and makes our neighborhood business districts safer for everyone, including our homeless neighbors.”

The ordinance reflects progressive policing theory that suggests consistent, less severe sanctions can more effectively change behavior than severe punishment. The City Council will be holding more discussions around innovative criminal justice and law enforcement reforms later this week with public policy Professor Mark Kleiman of UCLA.

An education campaign will be conducted by the police to inform people on the street about the new law before it takes effect. Similar education efforts served as an effective deterrent when Tacoma passed a broader ordinance in 2007.

At the end of February, Burgess announced a five-point plan to address street disorder. In addition to the aggressive solicitation ordinance, the other elements of the plan include: more police foot patrols, continued hiring of officers to increase police presence in our neighborhoods, enhanced efforts to connect those in need with appropriate social services and giving higher priority to housing and support services for the chronically homeless.

Councilmembers Bagshaw, Burgess, Clark, Conlin, and Godden voted in favor of the ordinance. Councilmembers Harrell, Licata, O’Brien, and Rasmussen were opposed.

10 Replies to "Council OKs "aggressive solicitation" law; mayor vows veto"

  • MA April 19, 2010 (5:45 pm)

    McGinn is a wimp. The $50 fine isn’t large enough given what these people ‘make’ in a day.

  • susan harmon April 19, 2010 (6:06 pm)

    Kudos to the 4 who stand w/the majority of Seattle and against the fear-mongering power brokers.We are a compassionate city even if we had to come through the back door to get there. A law that scapegoats the homeless for the bad economy based on faulty statistics and a lot of unfounded fear.

  • South Park denizen April 19, 2010 (6:36 pm)

    I hope Tim gives this sideshow issue a break and gets back to balancing the budget.

  • Give it up mcginn April 19, 2010 (8:07 pm)

    What has to be done to impeach McGinn?

  • Fiwa Jcbbb April 19, 2010 (9:13 pm)

    He has to commit provable “high crimes or treason” I would imagine, to be impeached. To get most of West Seattle out with torches and pitchforks he has only to realize his dream of ruining our commute by tearing down our viaduct and replacing it with a massive traffic jam…that’s why I didn’t vote for him. But for vetoing this latest bit of “lets punish the poor for being poor” insensitivity he’ll get a hearty pat on the back from most of us, as we’re not as shrill and selfish as your average “let them eat cake” wealth-worshipping types, who complain like whining two year olds about having to be near the less-fortunate. Enjoy this bit of sarcasm, teabaggers:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20t4gBf_1d4

  • Carson April 20, 2010 (7:41 am)

    I Like Mike!!!!

  • Jeff April 20, 2010 (8:05 am)

    Two things are true: Panhandlers are really annoying, and this law would cause no change in behavior.

  • ivan April 20, 2010 (8:20 am)

    The worst, most aggressive street panhandlers, who have caused the most damage to society, have taken the most from us, and have made everyone feel less safe, are those on Wall Street. Crack down on them, and THEN talk to me about people on the streets of Seattle.

  • panhand April 20, 2010 (8:45 am)

    I know one SPD officer who agrees – says the law will do nothing to deter pan-handling in our city. Saying “It’s a stupid law. What are we supposed to do? Tell them to move away from every ATM area every 5 minutes? We are too busy for that.”

  • dawsonct April 21, 2010 (4:49 pm)

    If we could get aggressive corporate lobbyists to stop panhandling (small bribes reap huge rewards) in Olympia, D.C., and every other capital in our Nation, THEN we might actually start to change things for the better.
    Until then, stupid not-even-half-measures like this one just serve to distract.

Sorry, comment time is over.