Article
Five-Four Vote Sends Panhandling Law to Mayor for Promised Veto
Updated with comments from Mayor McGinn and Council Member Burgess.
An hour ago, we broke the news, rumored earlier in the day , that City Council Mike O'Brien—under pressure from Mayor Mike McGinn and homeless advocates over the weekend—had decided to change his mind (again—O'Brien opposed the legislation in principle on the campaign trail before saying he would support it last week) and vote against Tim Burgess' proposed aggressive-solicitation ordinance, which expands the definition of aggressive panhandling.
This afternoon, the council voted 5-4 to pass the ordinance, which Mayor Mike McGinn's chief of staff confirmed to PubliCola he will veto. Once he does so, the council has 30 days to take another vote to override that veto. An override requires six council votes. Burgess is certain to spend that time putting pressure on council members who made weak "no" votes against the ordinance (like Harrell, who initially supported it) and those who might want to assert council power instead of letting the mayor win a veto battle (like Rasmussen, who also initially supported it.) However, based on conversations with council members and staff, the four "no" votes appear to be fairly solid.
O’Brien made a statement about his decision to switch his vote, which was reportedly influenced by lobbying over the weekend from Mayor Mike McGinn and advocates for the homeless.
“I made a commitment last year to voters that I would oppose this type of legislation. … Last week, I said publicly that I would support this legislation,” O’Brien said. “Over the weekend, a battle has raised inside me, between my head and my heart, and today I’ve changed my mind and I’m going to vote no.”
I talked to McGinn after the vote. He confirmed that he lobbied O'Brien to switch his vote on Friday night, but that "I wasn't organizing people to call" him over the weekend. "I just expressed to him that I thought a 'no' vote was the right vote for him. My guess is that Mike heard from a lot of people. I bet the pace picked up" over the weekend, McGinn said.
After the vote, Burgess told PubliCola he will wait to see what reasons the mayor gives for his likely veto before deciding whether to make a concerted push to overturn it. He says he wasn't surprised by O'Brien's reversal, and that he believes O'Brien's vote was "genuine and came from his heart," not lobbying by the mayor.
Assuming Burgess doesn't sway any of his colleagues back into his camp, the vote is a big victory for McGinn, albeit a negative one—stopping something he opposes, as he did with the roads and transit ballot measure in 2007. The veto solidifies McGinn's reputation as a social justice lefty. Paradoxically, it could also be good for Burgess, making him a hero to the downtown and business interests that make up his political base.
It's also unclear what impact, if any, O'Brien's flip-flop will have on his relationships with other council members, who may view him as more of an ally to McGinn than to the council. O'Brien and McGinn are longtime friends and colleagues; they worked at the Sierra Club and the law firm Stokes Lawrence together, and ran their campaigns out of the same consulting shop.
O'Brien wasn't available this afternoon. McGinn, for his part, said he doesn't think the public cares much about council-mayor dynamics. "What matters is what the public thinks of his vote and what the people who spoke to him think of his vote," McGinn said. "That’s how democracy works."
An hour ago, we broke the news, rumored earlier in the day , that City Council Mike O'Brien—under pressure from Mayor Mike McGinn and homeless advocates over the weekend—had decided to change his mind (again—O'Brien opposed the legislation in principle on the campaign trail before saying he would support it last week) and vote against Tim Burgess' proposed aggressive-solicitation ordinance, which expands the definition of aggressive panhandling.
This afternoon, the council voted 5-4 to pass the ordinance, which Mayor Mike McGinn's chief of staff confirmed to PubliCola he will veto. Once he does so, the council has 30 days to take another vote to override that veto. An override requires six council votes. Burgess is certain to spend that time putting pressure on council members who made weak "no" votes against the ordinance (like Harrell, who initially supported it) and those who might want to assert council power instead of letting the mayor win a veto battle (like Rasmussen, who also initially supported it.) However, based on conversations with council members and staff, the four "no" votes appear to be fairly solid.
O’Brien made a statement about his decision to switch his vote, which was reportedly influenced by lobbying over the weekend from Mayor Mike McGinn and advocates for the homeless.
“I made a commitment last year to voters that I would oppose this type of legislation. … Last week, I said publicly that I would support this legislation,” O’Brien said. “Over the weekend, a battle has raised inside me, between my head and my heart, and today I’ve changed my mind and I’m going to vote no.”
I talked to McGinn after the vote. He confirmed that he lobbied O'Brien to switch his vote on Friday night, but that "I wasn't organizing people to call" him over the weekend. "I just expressed to him that I thought a 'no' vote was the right vote for him. My guess is that Mike heard from a lot of people. I bet the pace picked up" over the weekend, McGinn said.
After the vote, Burgess told PubliCola he will wait to see what reasons the mayor gives for his likely veto before deciding whether to make a concerted push to overturn it. He says he wasn't surprised by O'Brien's reversal, and that he believes O'Brien's vote was "genuine and came from his heart," not lobbying by the mayor.
Assuming Burgess doesn't sway any of his colleagues back into his camp, the vote is a big victory for McGinn, albeit a negative one—stopping something he opposes, as he did with the roads and transit ballot measure in 2007. The veto solidifies McGinn's reputation as a social justice lefty. Paradoxically, it could also be good for Burgess, making him a hero to the downtown and business interests that make up his political base.
It's also unclear what impact, if any, O'Brien's flip-flop will have on his relationships with other council members, who may view him as more of an ally to McGinn than to the council. O'Brien and McGinn are longtime friends and colleagues; they worked at the Sierra Club and the law firm Stokes Lawrence together, and ran their campaigns out of the same consulting shop.
O'Brien wasn't available this afternoon. McGinn, for his part, said he doesn't think the public cares much about council-mayor dynamics. "What matters is what the public thinks of his vote and what the people who spoke to him think of his vote," McGinn said. "That’s how democracy works."
