City Council member Tim Burgess is drafting legislation that would place new restrictions on panhandling, potentially banning panhandling at night; at freeway entrances and exits; within 25 feet of an ATM; and when the person being panhandled is getting into or out of a car. "What we’re trying to do here is put in some safeguards where people feel vulnerable."

Burgess says the proposal, which is just now being drafted, was "prompted by the dozens and dozens and dozens of complaints that we get" about aggressive panhandling. "My motivation is creating safer streets and [also] creating outlets for people who feel that [panhandling] is the only way to get a few bucks."

Burgess says that most elements of his proposal have been upheld by courts in Washington and other states, but acknowledges that the restrictions on panhandling after dark may be "too broad."



Wouldn't his plan essentially criminalize homelessness? And given that the city has to get out of the county jail within the next several years, wouldn't it place an extra strain on an already overburdened county criminal justice system?

"I’m of the opinion, and I believe my opinion is supported by the police, that the individuals who are causing problems are, in most cases, not homeless," Burgess says. He says that 80 percent aggressive panhandlers are convicted criminals being supervised by the Department of Corrections—"a very specific youth population."

The leading candidates for mayor, city attorney, and city council (the group that will ultimately have to approve or reject the legislation) were divided on Burgess' still-nebulous proposal.

Mike O'Brien, who's running against Robert Rosencrantz for City Council Position 8 (and looks likely to win, based on the primary-election results), says he's skeptical that criminalizing certain types of panhandling will do much for public safety. "I think for the most part these are people who don't have better alternatives," O'Brien says. "I don’t think the solution is law enforcement and outright banning, but finding alternatives for those people."

Position 6 incumbent Nick Licata, who seems certain to make it through the general election after winning the primary against Jessie Israel with 56 percent, said he doesn't have a position on the proposal, then proceeded to trash it. "What are we going to do—arrest someone if they break the [new] law and then put them in jail for $120 a night? At that rate, we're going to be building two new jails, not one."

Licata says any law that restricts people's freedom of movement is likely to run into constitutional problems. "Unfortunately, there's this 200-year-old piece of paper that provides some freedom of movement to everyone. It's a nuisance, but you can't restrict people's movement." He says a better approach would be to fund more day centers and services for the homeless.

Mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan, according to his spokeswoman Charla Neuman, opposes the ordinance. And Mike McGinn, also running for mayor, says he doesn't have an opinion on the proposal yet.

On the "pro" side of the equation are City Council Position 4 frontrunner Sally Bagshaw—who says "a lot of people are really cranked at how uncivil the streets are right now" but adds that she wants to increase services for  "people who are struggling on the street"—and City Attorney Tom Carr, who says "we’re getting to a place downtown where we’re hurting our businesses" and tourism. Carr's opponent Pete Holmes, a police-accountability watchdog, says he is "a bit concerned that the conduct [aggressive panhandling] is already illegal. Maybe it's a policing resources issue" rather than a law-enforcement issue, he says.

Burgess says he'll probably come out with a formal proposal in October, which happens to be right before the council takes up the mayor's budget.