Seattle Forward

Snapshot of Mayoral Vetoes Past 20 Years

On Monday the Council will reconsider and vote on Council Bill 116807, the aggressive solicitation measure the Council adopted 5-4 on April 19, 2010.  Mayor McGinn vetoed this legislation on April 26, 2010 and returned it to the Council.

The City Charter requires the Council to "reconsider and vote" on whether to sustain or override the Mayor's veto.  

There have only been eight mayoral vetoes in the past 20 years; twice the Council overrode the Mayor's veto, four times the Council sustained the Mayor's veto, one time the Council did not reconsider, and the eighth reconsideration will be Monday.  Here's the list:

Council Bill 108078 related to city retirement policies.  Adopted by Council July 9, 1990; Mayor's veto overridden on August 6, 1990.

Council Bill 113302 related to teen dancing restrictions.  Adopted by Council on August 21, 2000; Mayor's veto sustained on September 18, 2000.

Council Bill 113803 related to public restrooms and automatic public toilets.  Adopted by Council on August 20, 2001; Mayor's veto overridden on September 10, 2001.

Council Bill 113818 related to parking regulations.  Adopted by Council November 5, 2001; Mayor's veto sustained on December 10, 2001.

Council Bill 114147 related to transition housing.  Adopted by Council on June 24, 2002; Mayor's veto sustained on July 22, 2002.

Council Bill 114183 related to a contract land rezone.  Adopted by Council on June 24, 2002; Mayor's veto sustained on July 22, 2002.

Council Bill 115986 related to the regulation of nightlife.  Adopted by Council on September 17, 2007; Mayor's veto never reconsidered by Council.

Ordinance 116807 related to regulation of public conduct, specifically aggressive solicitation.  Adopted by Council on April 19, 2010; Mayor's veto to be reconsidered on May 24, 2010.

Moving Forward

The City Council took an important step yesterday in adopting two parts of my five-point plan to address crime and street disorder on our streets and sidewalks. 

In summary, the five measures to improve the qualify-of-life on our streets includes more police foot patrols, continued hiring of officers to increase police presence in our neighborhoods, enhanced efforts to connect those in need with appropriate social services, making more “housing first” units with support services a priority in order to give those who have been chronically homeless a real opportunity to find a safe place to call home and a new law to prohibit intimidating behavior during the course of a solicitation. 

First, the Council voted 5-4 in favor of the aggressive solicitation ordinance that creates a civil infraction for intimidating behavior that causes fear or the compulsion to give while soliciting.  The penalty:  a $50 fine or community service.  Read my statement delivered yesterday in support of this legislation: Download 2010 04 19 CM Burgess Remarks on Solicitation. Mayor McGinn has said that he will veto this ordinance. 

Safer Streets, Less Punishment

Can we have less crime and less punishment at the same time? I think we can.

The City Council will vote next Monday on a new aggressive solicitation ordinance, the first step in our efforts to reduce crime and make our streets and sidewalks safer for everyone. (The new law passed out of committee last week on a 3-1 vote; Conlin, Bagshaw and myself in favor, Licata opposed.)

The ordinance is part of a five-point plan to address street crime and disorder. It has generated heated objections from some who claim it attacks the homeless and sweeps our city of people who look unpleasant or make us uncomfortable. That's simply not true. In fact, the leaders of major

Does Aggressive Solicitation Law Attack Homeless?

Opponents of the proposed aggressive solicitation ordinance say it is unfairly aimed at the homeless and those struggling with poverty.  Of course, I disagree or else I wouldn't have proposed the law in the first place.  Experts in the field of social services also disagree as is evident in this letter from leaders of major human services providers received at Council offices today: Download Human Service Public Safety Letter.  The letter is signed by the executive directors of Plymouth Housing, YWCA, YMCA, Downtown Emergency Services Center, Union Gospel Mission and Compass Housing Alliance.

Here's an excerpt from the letter:  "We specifically want to address the anti-solicitation ordinance, which has generated a large amount of discussion and debate.  Some have suggested in public testimony before the Council that the ordinance is "anti-homeless" or designed to "target the poor."  We couldn't disagree more with these characterizations.  We support this ordinance because it strikes a balance between protecting rights and restricting intimidating and aggressive behavior.  The ordinance focuses on specific behaviors and applies to anyone who is aggressively soliciting in Seattle."

Also today, the Downtown Seattle Association released the results of a live-operator poll they conducted about this ordinance.  Support for the ordinance is overwhelmingly strong. Read media coverage here. 

Revised Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance

The revised Aggressive Solicitation ordinance is now available.  The changes clear up misunderstandings, lend more clarity and require an annual assessment of the effectiveness of the ordinance from the City Attorney and Chief of Police. 

The Council's Public Safety and Education Committee will discuss and vote on this ordinance on Wednesday, April 7 at 9:30 a.m. in Council chambers. 

Interesting Perspectives on Street Disorder

The Mayor agrees and police foot patrols are coming soon to Belltown, the downtown core, Pioneer Square and the International District.  Here's a Seattle Times editorial endorsing the added police presence; they're right.

One part of the street disorder problem in Seattle is aggressive solicitation.  Not by the homeless who rarely engage in aggressive panhandling but by street thugs and those who prey on people because they have come to believe they can get away with it in Seattle.  But, I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone agrees and we have had a very robust debate over the past few weeks about the best approach to these problems.  I've met with community groups, business associations, individuals, advocates for the homeless and those living with poverty and listened to their differing opinions. 

Two guest opinion pieces will appear in Sunday's Seattle Times on this important topic.  This one is written by a social service provider who strongly endorses the measures I've proposed, primarily because she wants to protect the very people she serves.  The other is written by a citizen who was viciously assaulted by an aggressive solicitor last December; he's opposed to part of my plan.  There perspectives could not be more different.  Read them both, then decide which is closer to your opinion.  Let me know what you think.

Safe Streets for Everyone, Strong Economy, More Jobs

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

Street Disorder: Nearing A Dangerous Tipping Point

“I want our downtown to be economically strong and safe for everyone. That’s important to our nearly 1,000 formerly homeless Plymouth residents living downtown. Councilmember Burgess’ proposals fairly balance a police response with a social services response to enhance safety downtown. We at Plymouth Housing Group welcome these ideas.” 

Paul Lambros
Executive Director, Plymouth Housing

"The nightlife and music industry want more police officers on our streets. We want aggressive solicitation stopped. Our customers and neighbors need to feel safe on our sidewalks as they enjoy our vibrant nightlife. These proposals are certainly a step in the right direction."

Mike Meckling
President, Seattle Music and Nightlife Association

“Pioneer Square business owners and residents are very concerned about street crime and disorder. This part of downtown is teetering on the edge and the City should be forceful in its efforts to make our streets safer for everyone."

Lisa Dixon
Program Director, Pioneer Square Community Association

The most serious felony crimes increased 22% in 2009 in our downtown—stretching from South Lake Union to Pioneer Square—compared to 2008.  It was the second consecutive year of significant increases in reported Part I crime in this important area of our city. To many observers, including business owners, community leaders, social services providers, and residents, we are approaching a dangerous tipping point where perceptions of crime and unsafe conditions could lead to long-term negative consequences.

Today, I unveiled my "continuum of response" designed to address this rising crime rate and . . . (continue below jump for more, including various documents supporting this initiative.)