City Hall
Exclusive: O'Brien Will Vote No on Panhandling Ordinance
This post has been updated, and will continue to be updated throughout the council meeting, which is still ongoing.
We've now confirmed what we first heard earlier today: City Council member Mike O'Brien will vote no on the aggressive panhandling ordinance, an O'Brien staffer tells us.
The vote represents a reversal of O'Brien's position last week, when he said he would vote in favor of the proposal. With O'Brien's "no" vote, the legislation has only a five-vote majority, which can be defeated by a promised veto by Mayor Mike McGinn.
McGinn chief of staff Julie McCoy confirms that McGinn will veto the legislation, which the city charter requires him to do within 10 days of the vote. That would send the legislation back to the city council, which must hold an override vote within 30 days of the veto. Conceivably, a weak "no" voter on the council (Bruce Harrell, O'Brien) could decide to switch to a "yes" to preserve council power over the mayor; I'll have more on that possibility once
this meeting's over.
O'Brien made a statement about his decision to switch his vote, which was reportedly influenced by heavy 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."
Legislation sponsor Tim Burgess, who looked grim before the meeting, said, "This new law has been misinterpreted by those who oppose it. It does not violate free speech rights, and it certainly does not criminalize the homeless or any of those who struggle with poverty."
"There's no doubt that this measure is controversial," Burgess continued. "Good people will disagree about the merits of this proposal. If it is passed today, over time, we will determine if it is effective."
Sally Clark, who is voting for the legislation, said she's "under no delusion that people will be able to come up with fifty bucks" to pay for the tickets police officers would be able to issue for violations of the ordinance. However, she said, violators can do community service in lieu of paying the fine. And, addressing concerns about due process (failing to appear in court can result in a misdemeanor charge), she noted that failure to appear already opens people up to potential misdemeanor charges, including people who violate the city's aggressive begging ordinance.
On the other side, Tom Rasmussen, who is voting against the bill, said the law wouldn't be effective because a police officer would have to actually witness aggressive solicitation to enforce it. And he said the city should first prioritize improving social and human services before it cracks down on panhandlers downtown. "We have the promise of outreach, we have the promise of homeless service programs, and they’re not joined together," Rasmussen said. "Not only is it ineffective, it’s premature."
We've now confirmed what we first heard earlier today: City Council member Mike O'Brien will vote no on the aggressive panhandling ordinance, an O'Brien staffer tells us.
The vote represents a reversal of O'Brien's position last week, when he said he would vote in favor of the proposal. With O'Brien's "no" vote, the legislation has only a five-vote majority, which can be defeated by a promised veto by Mayor Mike McGinn.
McGinn chief of staff Julie McCoy confirms that McGinn will veto the legislation, which the city charter requires him to do within 10 days of the vote. That would send the legislation back to the city council, which must hold an override vote within 30 days of the veto. Conceivably, a weak "no" voter on the council (Bruce Harrell, O'Brien) could decide to switch to a "yes" to preserve council power over the mayor; I'll have more on that possibility once
this meeting's over.
O'Brien made a statement about his decision to switch his vote, which was reportedly influenced by heavy 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."
Legislation sponsor Tim Burgess, who looked grim before the meeting, said, "This new law has been misinterpreted by those who oppose it. It does not violate free speech rights, and it certainly does not criminalize the homeless or any of those who struggle with poverty."
"There's no doubt that this measure is controversial," Burgess continued. "Good people will disagree about the merits of this proposal. If it is passed today, over time, we will determine if it is effective."
Sally Clark, who is voting for the legislation, said she's "under no delusion that people will be able to come up with fifty bucks" to pay for the tickets police officers would be able to issue for violations of the ordinance. However, she said, violators can do community service in lieu of paying the fine. And, addressing concerns about due process (failing to appear in court can result in a misdemeanor charge), she noted that failure to appear already opens people up to potential misdemeanor charges, including people who violate the city's aggressive begging ordinance.
On the other side, Tom Rasmussen, who is voting against the bill, said the law wouldn't be effective because a police officer would have to actually witness aggressive solicitation to enforce it. And he said the city should first prioritize improving social and human services before it cracks down on panhandlers downtown. "We have the promise of outreach, we have the promise of homeless service programs, and they’re not joined together," Rasmussen said. "Not only is it ineffective, it’s premature."
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
