Real Change Blog
WHEREAS it is inhumane and immoral to punish people for living outside …
Like it? Share it!
As Cyd Gillis reports in the current issue of Real Change, Seattle’s homeless sweeps are quietly ongoing, and the city protocols that were to guide these are honored mostly in the breach, if at all. It’s not in the news, so it doesn’t exist. Not unless it’s your stuff that gets dumped.
So it’s nice to see folks noticing, especially now, with Councilmember Burgess conflating panhandling and thuggery and talking endlessly of how Seattle always does right by the poor and homeless.
The King County Democrats Central Committee approved the resolution below after it was brought to them by the 36th District Dems. It’s good to see people standing up to say what’s right.
Resolution in Opposition to the Demolition of Homeless Encampments
WHEREAS the Washington State Department of Transportation pursues a policy of demolishing homeless people’s encampments and throwing away their property when there is no alternative shelter; and
WHEREAS this policy fails to honor the rights of the homeless to their property, survival gear and documents, and fails to address the chronic and severe shortage of emergency shelters and services; and
WHEREAS homelessness is a national problem that will likely get worse in the current economy; and
WHEREAS the King County one-night counts for 2008, 2009, and 2010 found approximately 2600 – 2850 people living outside on winter nights when emergency shelters were at or near capacity; and
WHEREAS it is inhumane and immoral to punish people for living outside when there are not enough shelters or affordable housing;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the King County Democrats call for the Washington State Department of Transportation and other jurisdictions to stop all non-emergency homeless camp sweeps and demolitions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the King County Democrats urge the Washington State Department of Transportation and other jurisdictions to work with homeless advocacy groups to find more humane ways to address the problem of homelessness; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the King County Democrats send a copy of this resolution to the following:
* Washington State Department of Transportation
* Governor Chris Gregoire
* Judy Clibborn, Chair, House Transportation Committee
* Mary Margaret Haugen, Chair, Senate Transportation Committee
* Dow Constantine, King County Executive
* King County Council Members
* Seattle City Council Members
* Mayor Mike McGinn
* All legislators from King County
Panhandling Hearing Scorecard & Logos
Like it? Share it!
After closely watching yesterday’s Public Safety Committee hearing on the Seattle Channel, I have to say that my first impression of how things went was a bit off base. Power has had a long time to strategize this one, and we were out-organized and out-maneuvered.
For the first hour, people in favor of human decency and keeping urban fear within reasonable check held our own pretty well. Of the 36 who testified, 19 were on our side. Many strong testimonies were given.
Then, Burgess announced that testimonies should be condensed to a minute in recognition of the extended time and long list of speakers. That’s when the Seattle business and corporate interest blitz commenced, including two neighborhood associations, Seattle Monorail, Argosy Cruises, Seattle Hotel Assn., Seattle Metropolitan Credit Union, A mysterious Pioneer Square property manager named Dane, and Starbucks. Their speeches were tight, rehearsed, and with few exceptions, came in under a minute with no signs of the haste that usually accompanies a planned speech being cut in half. The pro-ordinance forces dominated the final 30 some minutes with 14 of 25 speakers.
As Dominic Holden noted at the Stranger SLOG, the opposition to the ordinance came from a broad cross section of citizens and public interests, while Burgess’ support was represented by the usual downtown crowd. I count 61 speakers, 31 of which supported the ordinance, with tactical advantage going to the home team, and helpfully assembled a visual, in case any of us were deluded that this is going to be easy.
News from the Poorhouse
Like it? Share it!
In a recent article in the Seattle Times light was shed on the lack of effectiveness of Washington’s Child Welfare system. A new study found that half the families in the system had problems securing housing and two-thirds were on food stamps. Steps are being taken to try and reform the Child Welfare system and the study – conducted by Partners for Our Children – was the first step in attempts at reformation.
Today obesity is more highly linked with poverty than being underweight. A new study, reported in the New York Times, has revealed that Bronx, New York, has the most severe hunger related problems of any place in the U.S.. 37% of people living in the Bronx lacked money to get necessary food, this is nearly double the nation’s average. The study also showed that people living in the Bronx were 85% more likely to be obese than people living in Manhattan.
It is hard being a veteran, and it’s getting harder. Reported by the Associated Press, The Labor Department recently released data showing that last year 21.1% of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan were unemployed. This is far above the national average of 16.6% for people in the same age range (18-24).
While things are bad all over the country, Baltimore looks like one of the hardest hit areas. In a recent poll that was taken it was found that Baltimore County’s homeless population jumped 25% last year and evictions are up by 21%. Experts say they do not see this trend radically reversing any time soon.
In Portland city leaders have been debating whether or not to legalize “homelessness camps” in city parks and on certain church properties. The proposal to legalize these camps is to be on the city council’s desk by the end of March. The move is hailed by homeless advocates as being a step in the right direction.
The Meaning of Immediately
Like it? Share it!
Recent events have led me to consider anew the jesuitical hair from which the unholy existence of the “safety bubble” hangs. This is, of course, the 15’ no-go zone that may one day extend omnidirectionally from any person engaged in a parking or ATM transaction. When the safety bubble crosses paths with a solicitor, be it Larouchie, Save the Children canvasser, or Real Change vendor (because this legislation, remember, is not targeted at anyone, especially panhandlers, and applies across the board), their act of solicitation becomes — poof! — aggressive, with each instance punishable as a $50 civil infraction.
Additionally, if the ask truly is “aggressive,” as opposed to this newly defined faux-aggressive, one could also be charged under the current aggressive panhandling statute, which remains in force as a misdemeanor that carries a $250 fine.
The safety bubble itself however, as previously belabored, delicately hangs from Section 2.A.4.f.iii
iii. immediately before or after conducting a transaction at an ATM or parking pay station, is handling in plain view any money, bank card, receipt, check or other document related to the transaction.
What is this “immediately?” Is it, as Burgess and staff insist, some nebulous instantaneous event, over nearly as quickly as it began? Or does it have legs? How far do those legs extend? Is it until said document is reasonably dispatched to its logical and “immediate” conclusion? Seeing, as how part of the definition is “direct; without intermediary,” that would seem reasonable. In a parking transaction, for example, one takes the ticket from the pay station and “immediately” affixes it to the curbside window of one’s vehicle. Right?
Unsure, I turned to my appallingly underused Oxford Universal Dictionary (1955), which weighs in on the bathroom scale at 8.4 pounds. The concluding example of medieval usage is a minor miracle of serendipity..
Immediately adv. (conj.) ME. [orig. to render. L. immediate adv. (cf. prec. 6).] 1. In an immediate way; by direct agency; directly 2. With no person, thing, or distance intervening in time, space, order, or succession; closely; proximately; directly 1466 3. Without any delay, instantly ME. b. as conj. (ellipt. for immediately that). The moment that 1839. 1. Canow .. was immediatly vnder the dominion of the Tartars HAKLUYT. I, holden of the Crown 1647. 3. He bade me goe immeaditlye 1500.
Call me crazy, but the safety bubble here follows the transaction, or, more basically, the person, even when circumscribed to the “immediate” transaction. So long as one is directly engaged in the transaction without interruption, the bubble exists. Burgess says no, but the language says yes.
Deal would save GAU but cut 1,200
Like it? Share it!
After weeks of negotiations on proposals that were far apart, the House and Senate have crafted a compromise bill to save the $339-a-month cash grant and medical coverage that the temporarily disabled receive through the state’s General Assistance-Unemployable program. But 1,200 people are expected to be cut from the GAU rolls on Sept. 1.
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D-Seattle), chair of the House Human Services Committee, said earlier today that she had reached an agreement with Sen. Jim Hargrove (D-Hoquiam) on the Security Lifeline Act, legislation that Dickerson originally introduced as House Bill 2782. The bill sought to reform the $188 million program, in part, by renaming it the Disability Lifeline and stepping up the state’s process for determining which recipients are eligible for federal Supplemental Security Income benefits for the disabled.
In the Senate, Hargrove, chair of Human Services & Corrections, amended the bill to turn the $339 monthly grant into a housing voucher, or partial rent payment, with recipients to get only $50 cash per month.
Dickerson declined to provide details of the new bill, saying those would come tomorrow after she and Hargrove meet with the governor to go over the bill’s components. But human services advocates familiar with the new 2782, which should be introduced in the House late Tuesday, say it involves cutting $24 million from the renamed Disability Lifeline program and imposing a 24-month lifetime limit on benefits.
The 24-month limit is retroactive and is expected to immediately cut 1,200 people from the Disability Lifeline rolls as of Sept. 1. Advocates call it a good compromise, however, because the bill would maintain full benefits for the program’s remaining 17,000 recipients.
The governor’s second budget, by comparison, called for reducing GAU grants to $250 a month and imposing a lifetime limit of six months. The two-year limit can be removed in the next legislative session, advocates say.
The compromise bill also includes language to step up transitioning people from GAU to General Assistance-Expected (or Disability Lifeline-Expedited in the future), a category for SSI applicants-in-waiting. Unlike GAU recipients, whose benefits are paid for entirely by the state, GAX recipients receive federal health coverage under the Medicaid program. Once they get SSI, the federal government then reimburses the state for the monthly cash assistance it paid out.
The legislation also incorporates Hargrove’s idea of a creating a new state housing voucher for all new GAU applicants who are homeless and chemically dependent or mentally ill.
Burgess Lied. The Anti-Panhandler Safety Bubble Lives.
Like it? Share it!
At last Tuesday’s Seattle Office of Human Rights forum to discuss Seattle’s new panhandling ordinance, I challenged Councilmember Tim Burgess to meaningfully back up his claim that there is no 15’ “safety bubble” that follows anyone engaged in a parking or ATM transaction, thus turning pretty much any commercial district into a dynamic no-go zone for solicitors of any sort, including Real Change vendors.
Burgess replied unequivocally. The ordinance language, he said, was revisited last week and changed. “There is no safety bubble,” he stoutly declared.
I checked. The safety bubble lives. I see it. Our lawyer friends see it. And yet, Burgess denies its existence. The law, he says, and the 15’ bubble, applies only to transactions immediately conducted at a parking station or an ATM, and does not travel with the person. He’s lying.
Here’s the most current version of the relevant section of the ordinance.
4. “Aggressive solicitation” means the act of engaging in intimidating conduct towards another person in a public place when such conduct is accompanied by an act of solicitation. The mere act of solicitation without intimidation is not aggressive solicitation. Aggressive solicitation includes but is not limited to:
a. intentionally blocking or interfering with a person by any means while making a solicitation, including unreasonably causing the person to take evasive action to avoid physical contact;
b. intentionally using physical gestures or profane or abusive language that would cause fear or alarm to a reasonable person while making a solicitation;
c. repeatedly soliciting a person who has given a negative response to a solicitation while remaining within 15 feet of the person;
d. following a person who has given a negative response to a solicitation while repeatedly soliciting the person;
e. providing or delivering, or attempting to provide or deliver, unrequested or unsolicited services prior to or without the consent of the person to whom the service is provided; or
f. soliciting from within 15 feet any person who is using an automated teller machine (ATM) or a public or private parking pay station. For purposes of this paragraph, a person is using an ATM or parking pay station if the person:
i. is waiting in line for an ATM or parking pay station; or
ii. is conducting a transaction on an ATM or at a parking pay station; or
iii. immediately before or after conducting a transaction at an ATM or parking pay station, is handling in plain view any money, bank card, receipt, check or other document related to the transaction.
Real Change reporter Cyd Gillis had an email exchange on this with Nate Dozier, Burgess’ legislative assistant, last week. When she pressed him on the issue of whether the safety zone extends from the person or the machine, here’s what he said.
“Well my understanding of the way it’s now written is the 15 foot reference point is the person, not the machine. I think you could still not solicit from someone who is handling money or a parking sticker “immediately before or after” her or his transaction as that is part of the definition of “using.” I think your question might get into the definition of “immediately,” which I think leaves a pretty narrow window.”
This strikes me as a calculated misdirect. The safety bubble does not depend, as he says, upon some lawyerly distinction regarding the word “immediately.” The safety bubble exists in subparagraph f.iii as a whole, which says that so long as any document related to the transaction remains in one’s hand, that person constitutes a mobile no solicitation zone.
As to the word “immediately,” it obviously means more than 15’ after the center of the safety bubble leaves the parking meter or ATM, or there would be no reason for this clause at all.
To illustrate, say someone uses the Bank of America ATM at Westlake Center, exits right and walks, cash in hand, past the street kids that hang out near the sculpture on the way to the Starbucks across the street.. A kid asks for money. Does s/he get a ticket? Probably depends. That’s a bad law.
So, why the attachment to the safety bubble? Is it really worth all the obfuscation and legal vulnerability to the ordinance?
You’ll have to ask Councilmember Burgess, but here’s my best guess. The safety bubble makes the possible application of the ordinance nearly universal. Each of the 25 known panhandlers on the Downtown Seattle Association’s hit list, and anyone else that law enforcement cares to target, could easily be found in violation and ticketed. Repeatedly. Those tickets would default to misdemeanor warrants. There would be arrests, court appearances, and choices to be made.
The bubble creates options.
Just four of the panhandlers on the DSA list were identified by DSA’s own ambassadors as “aggressive.” With this new “tool,” that won’t matter. Any act of solicitation, when crossed with the safety bubble, becomes a civil infraction.
The ACLU and others are clear that this legislation creates intolerably broad restrictions upon free speech that will not withstand constitutional challenge. Burgess says the ordinance is extremely narrow and targets very specific uncivil behaviors.
My money’s on the ACLU.
Our tax dollars, however, rest with the city, which is too bad. Burgess’ response in a meeting last week to the question of whether litigation to defend bad law is a good use of city money was to say that the city already has a legal fund set aside for these exigencies, so, no problem.
It’s the classic bureaucrat’s dodge. “The money I want to spend on a stupid thing, being in that pile rather than this one, doesn’t really count.” It does. City dollars are city dollars.
This is bad law that will not, as written, withstand constitutional challenge. Burgess’ lawyers from the city think it will. The team of legal support and those who analyze laws like this regularly say they’re wrong.
There will be a legal challenge to this law whether the moving safety bubble lives on or not, but Tim Burgess should make good on his word. If, as he said in a televised public forum, the bubble does not exist as a matter of legislative intent, he needs to make it go away. Immediately.
“Panhandling” panel to talk Tuesday night, March 9
Like it? Share it!
By now, you probably already know: Seattle is considering a new law that will make “aggressive solicitation” — which includes yelling, following someone or asking for money within 15 feet of a parking meter or ATM — an illegal act, one that carries a $50 fine. Councilmember Tim Burgess proposed the ordinance in late February, basing it, he said, on a similar ordinance in Tacoma. Some people have praised the ordinance; others have denounced; still others are on the fence. But it’s hard to have a fully formed opinion if you don’t know the particulars.
So what does the ordinance actually say? And what does the ordinance really mean, not just for the panhandlers, but for the buskers, the Real Change vendors, the GreenPeace-niks and Girl Scouts? On Tues., March 9, from 7 – 8:30 p.m. you’ll have a chance to figure out.
That’s when the Human Rights Commission’s Public Safety Task Force will host a panel at Seattle University School of Law, Sullivan Hall, Room C5, 901 12th Ave. that will examine the proposals’ ins and outs. On board to speak will be Burgess; Jon Scholes, Policy Director of the Downtown Seattle Association; Anita Khandelwal, lawyer for the Defender Association’s Racial Disparity Project; and Real Change Exec. Dir. Timothy Harris.
It’s always impossible to predict what will happen at any panel, but here’s a safe bet: Burgess and Scholes will support the ordinance, Khandelwal and Harris will express grave doubts. And then there will be you, concerned citizen, who, after attending, will be able to put the whole situation into greater context.
Hundreds turn out to protest UW budget cuts
Like it? Share it!
Jessica Boone, UW student. Photo by Jane Austin
Coming around the corner from Red Square to the Quad, I was doubtful. Last year, in the midst of protests against budget cuts at the University of Washington, students and staff had turned out strong numbers in their protests, but, since last fall, continuing events aimed at calling attention to budget cuts have been a bit, well, anemic.
I was stunned, however, to see how many students had come out—perhaps 500 altogether—holding signs stating “No Layoffs,” “Tax the Rich,” and “R.I.P. Our Future.” After a few statements from the organizers, they marched around the lawned courtyard of the Quad, then into Kane Hall, across Red Square and on up University Way, chanting various slogans like “Who’s university? Our university!” and for a brief moment that WTO refrain, “This is what democracy looks like!”
The event was part of a National Day of Action to Defend Education that took place today on dozens of campuses across the nation, including Seattle Central Community College, Evergreen State College and Western Washington University. While the protesters didn’t shut down the campus the way students did today at UC Santa Cruz, it made this old alum very proud when, around 1:30 p.m., students in the top floors of the Art Building (of course!) unfurled a gigantic banner addressed to the university’s president. It read: “Emmert, Another Budget is Possible.”
Last year, in the wake of the Great Recession and state revenue shortfalls, the University of Washington’s budget was cut $73 million, leading the school to lay off 700 workers and increase tuition 14 percent. With tuition slated to go up another 14 percent this fall and more cuts expected, the protesters say the university has lost sight of its public mission—providing an affordable education.
Instead of raising tuition and cutting jobs, the school could start, say members of the UW Student Worker Coalition, which organized the event, by trimming the salaries of administrators who make more than $150,000 a year, with many participants calling UW President Mark Emmert’s $906,000 salary excessive. The coalition is also calling on the university to freeze tuition, halt the work speed-up that it says is affecting custodians (who had 39 positions cut last year, 17 of them direct layoffs), and provide real financial aid instead of loans that bury students in debt.
Jessica Boone, 20, said she is the first in her family to go to college and currently works two jobs to pay for her schooling, but is having a hard time keeping up. She wants to get a degree in sociology and go on to the UW School of Nursing, she said, but is considering enlisting in the Navy as a way to get her nursing degree.
“Mark Emmert makes over $900,000 a year,” she said. “I don’t think I’ll make that in my lifetime.”
Kayla Huddleston, 21, said she’s worried that further cuts to the university’s Office of Minority Affairs, which funds retention and mentorship programs, will deprive more people of color of a chance to get a college education. “If tuition goes up any further, it will be less affordable for those without scholarships,” she said.
“It’s ridiculous we’re balancing the budgets on the backs of students, workers and people of color,” said Steve Hoffman, an electrician at North Seattle Community College and member of the Washington Federation of State Employees, the union of the UW’s trade workers. “There’s a better solution, which is taxing the wealthy and corporate profits.”
News from the Poorhouse
Like it? Share it!
The New York Times reported recently that the Federal Government is overhauling the way it evaluates poverty. The standard formula, which measures only the income of a family, is being supplemented with other factors like the use of food-stamps and the existence of a mortgage. Poverty advocates have argued for years that the nearly 50 year-old poverty formula needed to be changed to more accurately reflect the true poverty numbers in the U.S.
A new study looking at the health of every county in the U.S. was recently released. The most unhealthy county in the nation turned out to be Orangeburg, South Carolina. It was found that the most key factors in determining a person’s lack of health, later on in life, were: Obesity, unemployment and childhood poverty. 22 percent of all Orangeburg residents were assessed as being in poor health 32 percent of all children were assessed as living in poverty.
John McClosky, a geologist at the University of Ulster, said recently that “…earthquakes aren’t killing people, poverty is.” He says this because, as is explained in the article written by The Daily Mail, the lack of earthquake-safe buildings and absent medical care are the cause of far more deaths than the actual events. The recent earthquake in Chili was nearly 1,000 times more powerful than the one which hit Haiti, however, it killed far fewer people because of the country’s more stable economy and infrastructure.
The rate of homeless youths attending public schools has risen in conjunction with the crash of the economy. In New York the situation is extreme with (as of February 26th) 15,495 families with children were living in shelters. The report, released by the NYC Department of Homeless Services, is a sharp reminder that often the people most vulnerable to poverty and homelessness are children.
The proposed “anti-panhandling law”
Like it? Share it!
Today Seattle City Council Member Tim Burgess proposed a law re aggressive solicitation. It will be a new section of the Seattle Municipal Code, 15.48.050. The law is available on his website as a pdf: http://www.seattle.gov/council/burgess/attachments/2010st_disorder_leg_aggressive_solicit.pdf
I’m glad that the law doesn’t call for any new licensing. Most of the provisions look reasonable to me, although I wonder why it is necessary to write a law specifically prohibiting solicitors from engaging in the activities covered. Why can’t these prohibitions also apply to non-solicitors? Why should it be OK for a non-solicitor to block my progress along a sidewalk?
But, never mind, for now. I’ll content myself to just complain about a couple of the provisions that bother me.
Part A. 4. of the proposed law defines some forms of aggressive solicitation. The introductory paragraph says it includes but is not limited to a number of activities that are then listed, 6 in all, a. through f.
The two that concern me are b. “intentionally using physical gestures or profane or abusive language that would cause fear or alarm to a reasonable person while making a solicitation;” and f. which deals with soliciting within 15 feet of an ATM, pay station etc. The problem with b is that it isn’t specific enough and it’s open to abuses. It is a wide open invitation to class discrimination. The very sight of homeless people alarms some otherwise reasonable people. So?
The problem with f is that selling, say, a newspaper, within 15 feet of an ATM, could get you a fine, even if you aren’t even addressing your pitch to the person using the ATM. You could even be facing the other way! It’s too broad.
older posts
Search Our Archives
Recent Blog Posts
WHEREAS it is inhumane and immoral to punish people for living outside …
Friday, March 19 at 7:36pm
Panhandling Hearing Scorecard & Logos
Thursday, March 18 at 8:32pm
News from the Poorhouse
Tuesday, March 16 at 3:49pm
The Meaning of Immediately
Monday, March 15 at 7:57pm
Deal would save GAU but cut 1,200
Monday, March 15 at 7:21pm
Burgess Lied. The Anti-Panhandler Safety Bubble Lives.
Friday, March 12 at 1:52am
“Panhandling” panel to talk Tuesday night, March 9
Tuesday, March 9 at 11:36am
Hundreds turn out to protest UW budget cuts
Thursday, March 4 at 6:09pm
News from the Poorhouse
Tuesday, March 2 at 3:03pm
The proposed “anti-panhandling law”
Thursday, February 25 at 7:05pm
Real Change on Facebook
Real Change on Twitter
Subscribe to Real Change News