Seattle panhandling bill passes; lacks votes to override mayoral veto

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn says he never liked the City Council's bill targeting aggressive panhandling, but he thought he couldn't kill something that had so much political momentum.

Eight of nine council members appeared to back the public-safety measure, and so did downtown business interests, some social-service organizations and the police chief.

Over the past two weeks, however, support for Councilmember Tim Burgess' proposal began to crumble, as opponents such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Real Change News questioned the bill's effectiveness, constitutionality and effect on the poor.

Late last week, McGinn promised a veto. He then turned to a friend and ideological ally to make his veto stick.

Councilmember Mike O'Brien ended up the key vote Monday on the bill's 5-4 passage. By switching from yes to no at the last minute, O'Brien made it unlikely that the bill will become law as the council needs six votes to override a veto.

McGinn said Monday he lobbied only one council member — O'Brien.

The councilman's flip was the likely unraveling of Burgess' panhandling bill, which he has been working on for months.

The measure would bar certain intimidating behaviors, such as blocking a person or using intimidating words or gestures while asking for something.

Supporters say the bill was crafted carefully to address fears of residents without infringing on the civil rights of the poor and homeless. The bill would help downtown businesses and protect everyone — including those who want to ask for money without being aggressive, they said.

"Ignoring our crime and street-disorder problems won't make them go away," Burgess said before Monday's vote.

But a growing group of opponents proved persuasive. Fueled by a 9-0 vote against the bill by the Seattle Human Rights Commission, 15 organizations, including the NAACP, ACLU and Real Change News, worked with Councilmember Nick Licata to publicize their concerns.

They said the data behind the bill showed increasing crime in some parts of town but didn't show that crime was tied to solicitation.

They cited concerns about due process, since panhandlers who received a citation would not be able to afford the $50 fine and could end up with a criminal record for failing to appear in court, especially since many might not have an address at which to be notified of the court date.

McGinn said such arguments were a big factor in his decision to announce a veto.

When Burgess proposed his legislation at the end of February, McGinn's spokesman characterized the mayor as supportive of the bill, at least as part of a package with more police presence and money for low-income housing.

"The five-point plan is a strong set of recommendations," spokesman Mark Matassa said at the time. "He looks forward to working with the council member to get them implemented."

McGinn now says that was "a miscommunication." He said Monday he always has had concerns, but didn't plan to actively oppose the bill or threaten a veto.

O'Brien was adamant in his support of the bill as recently as Friday.

In a statement sent to reporters, he said he intended to support the legislation: "I am convinced that we must act to address this real issue affecting Seattle streets, and this is the most thoughtful plan I have seen."

But at Monday's meeting, O'Brien said he had changed his mind. "Over the weekend a battle has raged inside me, between my head and my heart," he said.

O'Brien was not available for comment after Monday's meeting, but McGinn said the two men had spoken about the bill.

Kate Joncas, president of the Downtown Seattle Association, said her group will continue to work for enough votes to override the expected veto.

Once the mayor vetoes the bill, the council has 30 days to override it.

"I think it was really down to the last moment," Joncas said. "It's not over yet."

Emily Heffter: 206-464-8246 or eheffter@seattletimes.com