My five proposals related to street disorder have certainly contributed to a robust dialog around best practices, civil liberties and such. Some deny we have a street disorder problem. Others wish the proposals went further to include a total ban on panhandling in some areas. A few have engaged in name calling or questioned motives. There has been some very thoughtful and productive analysis, too. This piece, this one and this one at Crosscut.com have been especially helpful, as well as this post at Publicola.net.
I've continued to meet with a wide variety of opponents and proponents, especially related to the aggressive solicitation ordinance I've proposed. I guess the good news is that no one has objected at all to the other four elements of my proposal: more police officers on foot patrols
in neighborhood business districts, hiring more police officers so the full Neighborhood Policing Plan can be implemented, enhanced and better coordinated street outreach services to identify people in need, and more "housing first" options with support services so the chronically homeless get a place of their own.
Based on the dialog I've had over the past couple of weeks, I realize the ordinance may need a few clarifications so our intent is clear. I'll discuss these changes at Wednesday morning's meeting of the Public Safety and Education Committee. You can read the ordinance and see my proposed changes here: Download LEG Aggressive Solicitation ORD v2 AMENDED 3-15-10
So, here are a few more thoughts about why we are working on this issue.
First, we know we have a problem with aggressive solicitation and the police have asked for additional tools. This ordinance is one of those additional tools. It prohibits "intimidating conduct" that "makes a reasonable person fearful or feel compelled to give money or another item of value." The ordinance does not ban panhandling, only solicitation coupled with intimidating behavior.
Second, this ordinance shifts the focus from criminal penalties (as with the existing aggressive begging ordinance) to a civil infraction. This shift is consistent with recent research that shows that the certainty and swiftness of penalties are more important than their severity. This is a much needed policy change because it values compliance with sanctions rather than more jail time.
Third, our work here is guided by Tacoma's experience, an experience that is worth learning from. Tacoma passed a very strict panhandling ordinance a couple of years ago that is far more restrictive than what we have proposed. They had a very focused police training program, then a public outreach effort that lasted about 30 days before enforcement of the ordinance began. Tacoma has not had to use their ordinance. Why? Because it worked to deter the worst offenders and cured the problem. Our police department plans a very similar training and outreach program.
Fourth, the major social service providers in the downtown area support this initiative, including the aggressive solicitation ordinance, because it is their clientele that suffers when aggressive solicitation is left unattended. The public discourse around this ordinance has linked the homeless with the aggressive solicitors and this unfairly taints the homeless.
Fifth, aggressive solicitation has a huge negative impact on the economic viability of the city. Some people chose to ignore or minimize this reality, still others attack this initiative precisely because we are concerned about economic impacts. Economic recovery and the jobs it will create matters! I want to move beyond this current recession as quickly as possible. I want our neighborhood business districts to bounce back quickly, including downtown. This ordinance, along with the other parts of the initiative, is part of that recovery effort.
Finally, this proposed aggressive solicitation ordinance defines aggressive solicitation as behavior that causes intimidation, fear or the compulsion to give. This is a definition of regulated behavior that has been upheld by our Federal courts. We are not trampling on free speech rights here; we are merely attempting to reasonably control aggressive behavior and make our streets safer for everyone, including the homeless.
We will adjust the ordinance a bit because of the concerns we have heard, but we will press forward. Resetting the norms and patterns of behavior on our streets is a good thing that will lead to the preservation of jobs and make our streets safer for everyone.