Archive for September, 2009

Slumber Party at Tim Burgess’ House

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009
September 29, 2009 8:00 pmtoSeptember 30, 2009 6:00 pm

Last night Mayor Nickels had the privilege of sharing the sidewalk in front of his house with 50 homeless men and women who could not get onto the bus to take them to their shelter.

SHARE and WHEEL asked for an additional $50,000 from the city in order to fund bus tickets that provide transportation for over 500 homeless to and from their shelters. Although the request was marked down as an allocation by the City Council the request was some how lost in the Mayors office.

SHARE/WHEEL pleas need to be heard because without this additional funding many people will not be able get to a shelter and be forced to sleep outside. That is why SHARE/WHEEL have decided to set up camp in front of politicians’ homes every night until their demand is heard.

Tonight, Councilmember Tim Burgess will have is turn. If you would like to join in the protest they are meeting in front of his home at 2110 Bigelow Ave N at 8PM.

Read more about the protest last night on the RC Blog.

No Paradise For The Homeless

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

Look beyond the grass skirts and floral printed shirts on the backs of countless uncouth tourists, and you’ll see a dark underbelly to America’s tropical islands in the pacific.

Hawaii has gotten a lot of attention over the last couple of months for a pool of blatantly anti-homeless legislation, which has been brought before the Honolulu city council.

Last month, Councilman Rod Tam introduced a bill that would attempt to regulate the smell of bus passengers in Hawaii.  The bill would criminalize any person whose odor “unreasonably disturb[s] others or interfere with their use of the transit system.”

Despite the obvious flaw in the wide interpretation of this bill (how smelly is too smelly?), the consequences it proposed were unreasonable.  Any person who was found to be excessively homeless (excuse me; odorous) would be fined $500 or spend six months in jail.  That’s six months in jail because you didn’t have the chance to shower that morning since, you know, you don’t have a home and all.

This is clearly a law directed against the homeless – would someone be fined or thrown in jail for wearing too much cologne or too much sunscreen?  That stuff can really bother my nose…but we all know the answer is no; this is exactly the kind of law that would be selectively enforced against the poor and homeless.

Luckily, the national attention this gained meant that the council voted against this particular bill.  However, this isn’t the end of anti-homeless legislation in Honolulu.

The council voted last week to approve a bill making it illegal to sleep, sit or lie down on public sidewalks.  The bill came after community members complained about the homeless sleeping on the sidewalk and in doorways, after being banned from public parks in the area.

This bill, while similar to a Seattle ban, is far more extensive – banning people from sitting or sleeping at ALL times of the day, every day of the year.

Instead of offering any real solutions to the Hawaii’s homeless population, this is merely the city attempting to make the homeless population invisible, to shoo them away to a different part of the city where no one will have to see them.

Those caught violating this new law would be fined $50 after an initial warning.  This may sound reasonable compared to the previously mentioned law, but it’s by no means a small fine for someone living in poverty.  If you have no home and are sleeping outside every night, you could potentially get fined $350 a week.  Once these go unpaid it’s only a matter of time before you end up in jail.

I’ve often cited a 1962 Supreme Court case, which ruled it unconstitutional to criminalize a person’s right “to be”.  Doing so, they ruled, violated the eighth amendment protecting against cruel and unusual punishment; and that is exactly what is happening in Hawaii.  Land of the free indeed.

Protect and Serve?

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Thanks to all of you that came out to the candidates forum in Rainier Valley last night. It was good to be able to hold the candidates feet to the fire as this is the only scheduled forum that deals with issues that are important to those on the south side and communities of color.

I have to say I was disappointed with how both Mallahan and McGinn floundered during the Q+A. As hard as they tried it is apparent that both candidates are out of touch with these issues. Although I shouldn’t have expected much based on their socio-economic status and privileged upbringing. They obviously both have a lot of listening and learning to do before they are qualified to lead on these issues.

The crowd definitely threw its support behind Peter Holmes, candidate for city attorney, who came out swinging and throughly took advantage of the no show of his opponent, Tom Carr. He declared that the city would not build a new jail on his watch and he would fight for the people by holding the police accountable to them.

This stance was followed up later in the forum when every candidate in turn declared they’re opposition to building a new municipal jail in Seattle.

There was good sparing between the city council candidates, but overall on the issues of public safety I believe it is going to come down to who can face up to their ignorance the best and look to the communities to inform their policy decisions come November 4th.

Publicola also has a summary here.

Candidates Forum on Criminal Justice

Monday, September 21st, 2009
September 22, 2009
5:30 pmto9:00 pm

Join RCOP, the ACLU, the Defenders Union, and more for some hands on advocacy around issues of Criminal Justice and public safety.  We will be grilling our future city officials on effective policing, alternatives to incarceration, safer communities, and the criminalization of poverty.

Candidates for King County Executive, Seattle City Council, and City Attorney will be among those fielding questions from the community.  Lets tell them what we think about the impact of the criminal justice system on our communities of color and the poor.  Building a new Jail in Seattle would undoubtedly be exclusively for these communities – and that’s not something that we can let happen.

Dinner Free to All / Hallal Meal served late for Ramadan
Daycare / Translation Available

Rainier Valley Cultural Center at 3515 S Alaska St., 5:30PM

Restraining Order on the Poor?

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Last week Councilmember Tim Burgess proposed a new initiative to increase the safety of our city streets. While this obviously seems as if it is a no brainer, and will undoubtedly  be presented as one, the law specifically targeting panhandling will only provide the police with a tool to harass the poor, eliminate the face of visible poverty, and infringe on peoples basic right to survive.

The law as proposed would limit panhandling within 25 feet of an ATM, at intersections and highway on-ramps, after dark, and approaching people getting in or our of their car. While the cash machine and vehicle restrictions seem very reasonable there are already laws on the books that ban “aggressive panhandling.” These proposed provisions provide a “sensible approach” that seeks to draw public support for the measure. They make for tight talking points that make it seem that to oppose the law would be going against common sense.

The law will prevent many panhandlers from standing along roadways. Some may argue that eliminating panhandlers from an area is a good thing, but it needs to be understood that by banning an activity associated with extreme poverty does not eliminate the problem that made them poor in the first place. It makes those who drive the roadways feel better because they do not see evidence of poverty everyday on their way to work. This does not mean that they no longer exist.

The act of panhandling is protected under the First Amendment, but restrictions that limit time, place, and manner have been passed by many communities. All these restrictions do is criminalize actions that are associated with poverty, and in doing so limits their potential and opportunity.

These laws cannot be passed in the way they have been proposed. We will keep a close eye on the developments. In the mean time we need to set the tone of this debate. Send e-mails to Tim Burgess’s office (tim.burgess@seattle.gov) let him now what you think of the restraining order he wants to put on the poor. Write letters to the editor at the Seattle Times (opinion@seattletimes.com) who have whole heartily supported this measure multiple times. Sign up for our action alerts to stay up to date.

Tim Burgess is hoping to restr…

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Tim Burgess is hoping to restrict panhandling and infringe on the rights of the poor in Seattle. http://bit.ly/MCpjd