Let’s poll other ‘creepers’ too
To justify an anti-panhandling ordinance, Councilmember Tim Burgess cites surveys showing that people fear panhandlers [“Opponents assail panhandler limits,” NWThursday, April 15].
Brilliant —Lets take some more surveys to find out what other kinds of people are feared, such as blacks, Native Americans and rowdy teenagers. Then we can further boost the economy by restricting all of them from downtown Seattle.
— Terry Farrah, Seattle
Safe in the city? I think not
As a downtown resident and business owner, I encounter street disorder every day, which is both an annoyance and a serious concern.
Aggressive panhandling and solicitation impacts the quality of life for residents, visitors, employees and small-business owners. I empathize with the homeless and others down on their luck and understand their need to ask for a handout. But at the same time, I am disturbed, threatened and embarrassed for Seattle when overzealous solicitors and common hoodlums prey on street people and the rest of us alike.
We need the city to take immediate action on aggressive solicitation, drug dealing and general street disorder throughout downtown. I strongly support more police foot patrols and more police presence period, clear restrictions on aggressive solicitation, better coordination of outreach services and more housing with on-site support services to help those who need them.
All of us deserve to feel safe on the streets of this wonderful city.
— Brian Scott, Seattle
Spare a dime, save some time
I find that the tenor of Councilmember Tim Burgess’ panhandling amendment and The Seattle Times column supporting it [“An appropriate call for civil streets,” Opinion, April 15] threaten the city’s tenuous connection with compassion.
The amendment’s flawed language creates a law that relies far too heavily on police interpretation, making it easy to “sweep the streets” of people deemed detrimental to business profits. At its worst, the amendment takes an unsettling step toward criminalizing poverty and runs roughshod over civil rights.
The Times column attempts to cast this as an issue exclusively of behavior, yet it is both an issue of class and a penultimate test of how we as a city perceive and treat those who are impoverished, hungry and homeless. The Seattle Human Rights Commission, NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns regarding the amendment’s broad approach that penalizes panhandlers, and oppose it.
I urge Seattle’s council members to truly vote on the side of civility —on how we, as a society, treat all of our members —and vote no on this amendment.
On the streets of Seattle, it should not be a crime to hold out your hand, and say, “Brother or sister, could you spare a dime?”
— Nancy Dickeman, Seattle