A law to criminalize the poor

SEATTLE--Activists and business owners turned out March 17 at a City Council Public Safety Committee hearing to debate a proposed ordinance that would make "intimidating" solicitation an infraction punishable by a $50 fine.

Proponents of the law, including the Downtown Seattle Association, want customers to spend money without having to deal with poverty. They claim they are only going after "aggressive" solicitors.

But advocates for the poor feel that business owners are trying to drive the poor out of the city. In an interview, Steven Talley, representing Nickelsville--a homeless encampment named after former Mayor Greg Nickels--said:

I am upset and appalled. The economy is already hard enough on us. It would make us criminals for trying to feed our families. You can't even sit on the side of the street.

Very few panhandlers are aggressive. If they are, a quick word usually ends the situation. Seattle is one of the safest cities in the world. I've never seen anyone in fear for their safety from a panhandler. Most panhandlers just hold a sign and a cup. I don't understand why they are doing this. They are again penalizing the poor.

Seattle already has laws against "aggressive" panhandling and sitting on the sidewalks. The proposed law is so broad that it could also be used punish street vendors, such as those who sell Real Change, the homeless newspaper. It would especially target solicitors of people feeding parking meters or going to ATMs.

In addition, the definition of "intimidating" solicitation is very vague. In other cities with similar laws, as many as 90 percent of those cited have been found innocent--but only after being harassed by police and forced into court.

People who testified were evenly divided between homeless advocates, the homeless and the general public on one side, versus business owners and business associations on the other side. They differed greatly on how much of a problem "intimidating" solicitation is.

Business owners in favor of the ordinance cited examples of tourists who feared poor people and were alienated by their presence in the downtown area. Most of the residents of the area, however, testified that aggressive panhandling was not a major problem. Even if it was, they explained, this law would not help.

The homeless and their advocates were very eloquent in their opposition to the proposed law. "This ordinance is aimed at getting rid of people who scare us," said one person who testified against the ordinance. "The rise of panhandling is a sign that poverty is out of control. It shows what a deep problem we have in society."

Another person said, "This law is an attempt to mask and deny poverty. It is cruel to use neutral language to mask your real intentions. This will cause a rise in fear on the streets. There is nothing more intimidating than the fear of arrest. Inequality is not civil. Punishing people for being poor is not civil."

BUSINESS OWNERS who testified often claimed to be in support of money for housing and social services. However, they said that the money the city can raise for social services would be diminished if the atmosphere downtown was "intimidating." So they favored more repression as well--not realizing that money spent on enforcement is not available for going after the causes of poverty and homelessness.

This is especially true with the tight budget today. Seattle has already cut social programs because of the economic crisis. A "balanced" approach of social services and repression really means further criminalizing the poor and further cutting social service and housing money.

Ken Gurski, an acting member of the executive committee at Tent City 3, a Seattle homeless encampment, commented in an interview:

What are people supposed to do if their benefits are cut off? Some can't qualify for General Assistance Unemployable. Even if they do qualify, they only get $339 a month. Who can live on that? If they get even a low-paying job, they lose state benefits.

A few people are insecure when asked for a donation. Most people want to help other people. Some panhandlers get a little aggravated because they are so frustrated, because their life is so hard. It gets frustrating trying to live every day on the streets. This law pushes the homeless to the curb. What are they supposed to do if the state won't help them? Under this law, they won't be able to help themselves.

The city is willing to spend lots of money on policing the homeless instead of on housing. Why not spend that money to house people? Let them get their heads above water. If people are aggressive, they often have mental health issues. The state should help them, instead of charging them $50 that they don't have.

Unfortunately, even many of the opponents of the law favored hiring more police as a way to "increase safety"--which undercut their argument for more social services and less repression.

The City Council will consider this law and several amendments over the next few weeks. The support from the police and business owners is so strong that some form of this law is likely to pass. Even some of the "Green" and "progressive" members of the City Council seem to favor the ordinance.

Opposition to the proposed law has not yet been large enough or militant enough to dissuade the council. If opponents of the law hope to derail it, a strong campaign of public action will be necessary.

Opposition to this and other repressive laws will be part of the continuing struggle to change the priorities of government at the local, state and national level.