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.