Cloaking poverty not how Seattle operates
The editorial on the enhanced “aggressive solicitation” ordinance was a crass attempt to discredit anyone with a conscience. [“Missteps are mounting for Mayor Mike McGinn,” Opinion, April 21].
It seems that anyone unwilling to walk in lock-step with commercial interests missteps in your view. However, as one of those small and “vulnerable” females, I deny that The Times speaks for me with its editorial.
The editorial neglected to mention that Mayor McGinn and those four City Council “no” votes had the support of the 34th, 36th, 37th and 46th District Democrats, The Seattle Human Rights Commission, Seattle NAACP, Real Change News, the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, Interfaith Taskforce on Homelessness, Seattle Displacement Coalition, El Centro de la Raza, Minority Executive Directors Coalition of King County, Lutheran Public Policy Office, Statewide Poverty Action Network, Asian Counseling and Referral Services, Church Council of Greater Seattle, ACLU of Washington, Seattle Community Council Federation, Urban Rest Stop and the Seattle Community Council Federation.
Hundreds of citizens also wrote, called and made public testimony. These public officials who stood up were not lone loons as the editorial tries to paint them.
This ordinance was not about safety, as proponents claimed. It was purely about the haves being annoyed by the voices of the have-nots — an assertion of some unstated right of business owners to not have their customers witness poverty.
Even if one sees that stance as valid, there is already an aggressive-panhandling ordinance on the books. The enhancement of that code was a great waste of city resources, pure vanity of one council member who has delusions that he is fit to be mayor — reminiscent of Mark Sidran’s “civility laws” a decade ago. Then and now, it was fueled by the paranoia of people of means, not only of the sight horrid homeless people, but that anyone could and might be next to be forced to beg for help.
We need leaders who unify us, not stratify us when we are in crisis. The problems of economic inequality and homelessness cannot be legislated away. The “aggressive solicitation” ordinance was an insidious gesture. Those who supported it should be ashamed.
— Christal Wood, Seattle
Safer in New York than Seattle
Seriously, why would Mayor Mike McGinn veto the panhandling bill? My family of six just came back from a week in New York City. We stayed right in the heart of things and were so impressed by how safe we felt — no panhandling. Sure, there were guys selling the knockoffs, but I never felt unsafe.
I cannot go downtown Seattle without getting harassed several times a day for money. I actually felt safer in New York. If I were a business owner in Seattle, I would be furious with the mayor. We need to get our streets safe and harassment-free.
Panhandlers need resources to get out of this cycle. They cannot feel good about having to ask for money. Besides, all that money is doing is fueling the reasons for why they are on the streets in the first place. Let’s help them and help our city by passing this panhandling bill.
— Peggy Cunningham Orse, Seattle
Can’t just sweep people under the rug
I walk downtown every day and see the homeless and jobless panhandling. I have never been aggressively confronted in my 20 years downtown by people asking for money.
While it is my prerogative to give them money or food, it is my prerogative, and I am a female small in stature. The aggression I have seen downtown has been by drunken people and gangs of youths. That is what the police need to patrol, not people holding up signs asking for assistance.
Maybe it makes those of us who do have jobs and are not homeless uncomfortable, but let us not forget our fortune and those less fortunate. We cannot just sweep people under the rug because they are asking for help. Mayor Mike McGinn would be right to veto the panhandling law.
Where’s the humanity, people?
— Dolores Rogers, Seattle