<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Seattlest: Panhandling Threatens, uh, Something</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php</link>
<description>All comments for Panhandling Threatens, uh, Something</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2009 seattle_katelyn</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:00:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>kbhackett@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>kbhackett@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>Tacomamama</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php#comment-1245319</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php#comment-1245319</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:46:45 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m not sure how I feel about the ban, I do think it possibly goes a little too far.

However, Tacomans are very aware of their image problem, and I think that&apos;s what this is intended to tackle.  Seattle has always had a lot of panhandlers, or at least it did when I lived there in the 90s, but that&apos;s not the primary image people have of the place.

Another important difference between Tacoma and Seattle:  population and numbers of people downtown.  When you encounter a panhandler on Broadway in Seattle, chances are there are lots of other people around.  When you encounter one on Broadway (or more likely Commerce, Broadway&apos;s actually kind of happening these days) in Tacoma, there may not be very many other people on the street.  A pushy panhandler starts to seem less like a pushy panhandler and more like a possible mugger.  I&apos;m not saying this perception is accurate, I&apos;m just saying it&apos;s easier to be frightened when you&apos;re relatively isolated.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Jeremy M. Barker</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php#comment-1245237</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php#comment-1245237</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:05:31 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;As always, MvB is classier than I.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Michael van Baker</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php#comment-1245200</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php#comment-1245200</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:30:31 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Other than not disliking Harris, I agree with Jeremy -- it&apos;s another &quot;insteadness&quot; moment, as if the real problem isn&apos;t the physically being without a home, it&apos;s the begging for money on the street.

It&apos;s also disingenuous to suggest that panhandling is part of that urban vitality we all cherish, and &quot;suburban&quot; types don&apos;t get it. Seeing the chronically ill or severely disabled or mentally unbalanced out panhandling in the elements day after day is emotionally taxing, and the answer is no single citizen&apos;s responsibility. These people need more than spare change.

&quot;Regular&quot; panhandlers ought to be regulated by the city and, in constructive ways such as newspaper sales, shoeshine stands, encouraged to go legit as actual service vendors. I&apos;d like to see something like micro-vendor licenses, so that people trying to make a living off foot traffic aren&apos;t hassled by the police but are actually encouraged in entrepreneurship.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Jeremy M. Barker</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php#comment-1245088</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://seattlest.com/2007/12/04/the_way_seattle.php#comment-1245088</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:21:58 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons I dislike Harris is because he&apos;s so patently political vis-a-vis his relationship to the city as an activist; it skews his judgment, and this is a case in point. Panhandling has gotten worse, and the cause--which he ironically doesn&apos;t bring up (unless Crosscut doesn&apos;t properly quote him) is that the city has aggressively allowed affordable housing to be eroded and housing for the very poor to be eliminated. It&apos;s putting more people on the streets in downtown because there&apos;s nowhere else to go.

It&apos;s true that the condo-dweller attitude plays a part, but it&apos;s unfair to blame them for responding to a detriment to their community. Development happens, and the question&apos;s not whether condo dwellers just need to suck it up so much as, with the redevelopment of downtown and the elimination of the low-cost residential hotels (largely eliminated during the 1990s), will we come up with a new solution and provide necessary services, or will we just treat them as a nuisance and regulate them away?

Harris has always gone too easy on the city government for my taste, and this is a case in point. Instead of properly laying the blame on the city, he chooses to blame residents&apos; &quot;attitude&quot; and downplay the development that&apos;s eliminating housing, since the latter point would help establish the reality that things are getting worse, which, of course, could help justify punitive regulation. 

I&apos;m not for punitive regulation or the banning of panhandling (which is likely constitutionally problematic and Tacoma may well be forced to backtrack); but that said, it&apos;s wrong to downplay the most important factor in the growing problem for the sake of trying to claim the problem&apos;s not growing. It&apos;s the sort of cynical politicking you get from a number of poverty and housing activists in this city, and shows how well Nickels &amp; co. have played them. It&apos;s a depressing scenario and is doing nothing good for poverty and housing issues in the city.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
