|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 9 users and 64 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 5:30pm.
The passage of the expanded "Pedestrian Interference" ordinance last night was disappointing and disheartening.
» It should be understood, however, that this is not the same law we've been facing for the last few months. Laura Ware's amendments to the proposed ordinance altered its effect. The law we were fighting last week would have criminalized homelessness outright, representing the new kind of Jim Crow that is called around the nation "Quality of Life" law. Had this law passed, it would have called for nearly every non-violent action imagined. But it didn't pass as written. Councilor Ware's "friendly amendments" took most of the nastiness out of the new ordinance. The new law will only be in effect during daytime (7:00 AM till 10:00PM) hours, allowing people to take shelter under the awnings at night. Laura also insisted that, if businesses could get permits for tables and chairs, that the street people be able to get permits for busking, and that those permits be affordable (she was talking a range of 50 cents to five dollars for a long term permit). So long as we work with the street community to help them get these permits, the new law shouldn't have any really bad consequences. Particularly if we can successfully urge the council to add a few more sidewalk benches. The law that was passed won't fix downtown's problems, and the debate that has been stirred by the anti-homeless proposals of the last many months has been incredibly ugly. This debate has contributed to the notion of homeless people as problems rather than human beings, and I certainly hope to hear an apology for this. I must say, however, that continuing plans to commit civil disobedience and direct action will be at best counterproductive and at worst horribly irresponsible and destructive. Using civil disobedience and direct action in an effort to overturn a law that is (at worst!) ineffective runs the risk of undermining the legitimacy of these vital tactics and the credibility of the activists. It should also be noted that the council unanimously allowed Laura's "friendly amendments", and that the same council also decided later in the evening to appropriate $200,000 towards services. Jeff Kingsbury called me today to tell me, and also to say that the council will be inviting representatives from social services to discuss how to spend the money. He said he hoped to see the street community directly represented in this group. I appreciated his conciliatory tone, and frankly I'd really like to see more homeless people than service providers on this advisory panel. I think it is very possible to start making some real change. We may well be able to get members of the council, including Jeff, at the table with the new Poor People's Union (PPU) and to have a REAL dialogue. I really hope that no one blows that opportunity this week. There is indeed a lot of work to be done in the coming months. It is important to continue educating the council about the reality of homelessness. It is important to remain vigilant and to make sure this new law does not hurt the street community, to document incidences of unfair treatment, and to notify the council if this does occur. It is important that we all support the continuing development of the PPU so that the street community has a strong voice in Olympia. And it is very important that we create opportunities for the PPU to work directly with the people in power to start creating some positive change.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Thank you for pointing this
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 8:04pm.I couldn't disagree more.
Submitted by WallyCuddeford on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 8:16pm.Laura Ware's amendments were an attempt to lighten the backlash, not to appeal to the homeless community. The ordinance is still inexcusable. It was an attempt to placate people whose anti-homeless stance should not be placated to.
The City Council and its associates were talking about how much they do for the homeless community. But they flat out ignored that community when it came out and told the council what they wanted. No, the City Council does not know what's best for the homeless. The homeless do. And as long as such measures are passed over the concrete objections of the public, you can expect civil disobedience of all sorts.
"It should also be noted that the council unanimously allowed Laura's 'friendly amendments'"
Considering TJ Johnson voted against the ordinance, I'd say that statement is misleading, at best.
Laura Ware's amendments were
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:08pm.Give me a break, man. The moment Karen Mesmer expressed her support we had lost. Laura took the meat out of this ordinance. It no longer bans homelessness. THAT WAS THE POINT... to stop them from banning homeless people. We were going to lose. They were going to pass a class based Jim Crow law. But Laura made the difference. It seems that you are having difficulty noticing that we, for the most part, got what we wanted.
The ordinance is still inexcusable. It was an attempt to placate people whose anti-homeless stance should not be placated to.
The ordinance IS still inexusable. And it was indeed an attempt to placate people who should instead have been set right. But if you think this is the last we've heard, you've got something coming. We made it through this round fairly unscathed, and we better make sure not to unnecessarily burn our bridges before the next round comes.
No, the City Council does not know what's best for the homeless. The homeless do.
You're damned right. That's why we've got to make sure not to blow upcoming opportunities to start a real dialogue between the council and the homeless.
And as long as such measures are passed over the concrete objections of the public, you can expect civil disobedience of all sorts.
If "concrete objections" alone are the only reason you've got for practicing civil disobedience, I think you will find that you will both diminish the act AND not get what you want out of it.
There is a whole lot of fucked up shit affecting homeless people that goes way, way deeper than a hollowed out, low-impact new law. I would urge you to look beyond a very small step in the wrong direction to see the veritable marathon that we've got to run to start setting things right. If you get distracted over a few inches, we might lose the whole mile.
Considering TJ Johnson voted against the ordinance, I'd say that statement is misleading, at best.
TJ voted his principles, and I wish the whole council held principles like his. It was really clear, however, that TJ knew we were going to lose. He was clearly relieved by Laura's "friendly amendments", and, in fact, when he read aloud his written statement he paused to express his appreciation for Laura's amendments, though he voted against the ordinance on principle. So yes, TJ did support Laura's amendments though he did vote against the ordinance as a whole.
The Canaanite's Call
Phil,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 11:21pm."Everybody who imitates Christ is a fake Jesus." –Alan Watts
Be careful Rob.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:18pm.The issue on this thread is about making sure the action is proportionate to the issue, and that the action is wise in the LONG TERM perspective.
I want to be very clear: the new law is largely symbolic. It does symbolize something incredibly ugly, but that doesn't change the fact that it will have little impact in reality.
The council and the business community have the luxury of taking symbolic actions. We do not. Things are too rotten as they are, and we must be sure that our actions will have a lasting impact in reality. Blocking the Capitol Playhouse doors is little more than a symbolic action aimed at overturning a symbolic law.
Furthermore, the action planned for this evening will be harmful and counterproductive. It will cause tremendous anger and deepen oppositional attitudes at precisely the time when the council wants to be conciliatory.
We could get a lot out of the council in the coming months; what's more we could get the PPU's foot in the door to have a regular negotiating relationship with the council. But it is entirely possible that all of that will be blown for symbolic bullshit.
You've been to the General Governance committee meetings. You know that this ordinance is not all that they have planned. You also know that it is probably the worst of what they intend to do. Most of the other stuff will be positive, unless we distract them by "tearing it down" all over town. You are right that $200,000 is good sugar... but if we strategize well it might just be icing. I want the whole fucking cake.
I want a real commitment from the city to build affordable housing. I want donut dialogues between the cops and the homeless. I want dialogues between the merchants and the homeless. I want faith communities to get their shit organized to make a real dent in poverty. I want sweeping reform at the Salvation Army. I want the city to offer space for a tent city. I want the city to go beyond permitting busking; I want them to pay for music lessons and craft materials and anything else that will make busking great. I want the the whole public dialogue around poverty to change from a discussion of the poor as a problem to a discussion of the poor as valued members of our community. I want the whole fucking thing.
We aren't going to get that from blocking Jeff's doors tonight.
The Canaanite's Call
I want to be very clear that
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 3:31pm.It simply does not matter that this ordinance was stripped of its teeth. It does not matter that this ordinance is symbolic. The city is STILL taking the sidewalk away, and telling homeless people that they can rent parts of it if they can play an instrument, and that they can use it after all the normal people are tucked away in their beds. That's telling someone they can't be a part of the community if they don't have something to offer. That's wrong.
"Everybody who imitates Christ is a fake Jesus." –Alan Watts
Thank you.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 3:47pm.I agree with you that the oridinance is bad, and you've just articulated exactly why. It isn't bussing people out of town, and it isn't criminalizing basic, necessary functions for survival. But it does marginalize the homeless and put strings on their participation in community. That makes it bad.
In part I'm still just moving past the stage of being grateful that it doesn't criminalize basic survival. But I totally agree with you that we've got to keep working at killing this thing.
We also agree that hooligan tactics are a bad idea, for many reasons. This is good.
I think we've got a lot to do.
The Canaanite's Call
Thanks Phil. I concur about
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 8:38pm.I am growing concerned with an increasing "ends justify the means" mentality in Olympia.
Your voice of reason is appreciated.
Thank you Rob.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:16pm.I'd like to offer a minor, but important, correction to your comment, if it pleases you. We don't need to wait for the council or the police. We can start by educating the whole community, particularly people on the streets, about EXACTLY what this law entails, and what it does NOT entail. That way the police can't abuse it. We can also get right to work on getting people busking permits, along with stuff to sell or hand out and instruments to play, etc.
The Canaanite's Call
Thanks for the Correction
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:36pm.I'm pleased.
I am looking forward to seeing how this evolves. There is an air of real promise that something good can come out of all of this, I feel. Like there is an avenue opening up for a real discussion to take place, about values, about our common humanity.
"ends justify the means" mentality
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 7:06am.For good or ill, we all live here. We have to live with each other.
Nothing needs to be blocked...
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:08pm.Its nonviolent, easy, cheap, affective, and no one needs to go to jail..
Having said that..
i think symbolic sit down type protests in defiance of the "no-sitting" ordinance is acceptable and effective nonviolent civil disobedience..
The cops expect this by now too.
The pseudo militant stuff is very played out (IE: bike locks, blocked doors, would be very dumb IMHO)
Street activists need to realize that:
1) This isnt the end of the world..
2) Reactionary actions are 99% of the time completely counter - productive..
we need to be smart about this..
I don't often quote myself
Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:23pm.But this is exactly what I said early today in response to the door blocking (Civil Disobedience Thursday Night - Capital Playhouse):
"You'll change minds with compliance along the way and due diligence in between."
Entire post here.
Thanks, Phil.
Submitted by Rick on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:20pm.This makes me feel better. I was beginning to think that the City Council had completely taken leave of its senses. Now it is clear that they were just passing a toothless ordinance to score political points with the suburban population. They are, after all, politicians. So, I'm relieved to know that they had some concept about the negative impacts of the law, and that adjustments were in order.
However, this leaves us with the problem that the City Council can be made to bow to political pressure in ways that are manifestly dangerous to vulnerable populations (i.e., homeless, teens). What do we do about that except let them know that the suburbs are not the only block with political power?
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
We could start a neighborhood Political Action Commitee
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:24pm.And raise funds for our favorite candidates.
Its a small town no?
That would give us instant clout.
This is a FANTABULOUS idea
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:30pm.The Canaanite's Call
We should make an Olyblog Community PAC
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:41pm.And then we can have massive debates over who to run..
Vote! And get people to
Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:33pm.Vote! And get people to run that you want to vote for. It's not a glamorous job but one that is almost always a first step for any budding politician.
This is not the first time a toothless ordinance has been passed by the current council. Probably not popular on my part given the forum and audience, but the Nuclear ordinance was just as bad. It lost its bite when it went through similar changes before being passed (I-5/101 exempt). It not only cost the city time and money, it was rejected by interlocal governments and the city had no choice but to basically abandon the pressures of the ordinance. It may still be in the books - but merely takes up space.
Hee hee!
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 11:49pm.That's not to say that homeless people never vote - I remember that a certain address on Cherry street had about 30-50 people registered to vote there (old B&R). But when you're in an all-mail ballot county such as ours (my Chicago elections culture upbringing just forced my left eye to quiver, violently) it's hard for a homeless person to get mail regularly enough to participate in elections.
By the way, Joe Hyer hosted (upstairs at Alpine Experience) TJ Johnson and Laura Ware's combined campaign organizing meeting before their last election. I was there. It was fun. I found out that day that Joe Hyer identifies with Corporatism, not progressivism. Who knew?
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
1. We support the shit out
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:38pm.I think they're going to be sponsoring tomorrow's action at the Capitol Playhouse, which I think is very unfortunate. But they are REALLY, REALLY important as the only legitimate voice for Olympia's homeless. I mean it. The PPU offers the street community a chance at taking collective action, at negotiating collectively with the city, at doing some REAL public education. The more we support them, the more positive change we're going to see in this city.
2. We make a lasting issue out of poverty and social marginalization.
The council is going to be looking at a whole lot of other options for downtown over the next several months. A lot of it is good, like the appropriation for services that they voted in last night. We should outdo them. We should be making proposals, starting community forums, writing letters to the editor, doing whatever we can to make the class divide THE #1 issue in Olympia.
3. A coordinated voter registration/get out the vote drive.
4. What Ehver Green said about running people for office. Too many of us are too unwilling to run. We need a slate of poverty activist candidates to get behind. Oh, and by the way, both TJ and Laura are "undecided" about running again. We need to do some talking with them and make sure that they run for re-election.
The Canaanite's Call
I don't always agree with
Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 10:06pm.I don't always agree with everything said here, and that's on me, but there are several of you on Olyblog that I would vote for regardless (council that is). For me, it's not always about your position but more about how you rationalize your position effectively. Throwing mud is no way to win people over. It's easy to say I'm a homeless advocate, it's not as easy to devote your life to it like Rob and Phil. Not only is that compassion - it is also selfless
Ugh...
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:09am.The opposite of selfish is not selfless, the opposite of selfish is community. Selfless is for martyrs, victims, and worst of all, saviours. If anyone comes to you "to help you" or "to save you" and they're not walking WITH you, living your life and facing your dangers, run like hell. Those folks are truly dangerous, and they will get you killed.
What was it she said? Oh, yes - "If you come to me because your path to liberation lies along the same path as mine, let us walk it together. If you come to 'help,' please respect me enough to leave me now, and go back to your own home."
The point being that you don't "help" people on your own terms, you help them when you become part of their community and do what you do because it feeds you, or drives you, or rewards you in and of itself. Anything less is a recipe for burnout and worse. Betrayal, even.
Always remember that when I copwatch, it's because it's what I'm good at doing and it is because I deeply feel it as self defense. I like doing it, and people like that I do it. But it is not a sacrifice for me, any more than it would be a sacrifice for you to spend half your disposable income on your favorite hobby. If it ever becomes a sacrifice for me, I'll take a vacation from it as soon as I become aware of that.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
Well said Drew.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:17am."Everybody who imitates Christ is a fake Jesus." –Alan Watts
But did the two of you
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:45am.But did the two of you understand my overtone? I certainly didn't imply you sacrified to do what you do. I could have used many words to describe my feelings toward volunteers - and with good intentions and a positive attitude towards the discussion you outed innocence. Well done...
“Volunteers need both selfish and selfless motives to sustain their interest” (Natalie de Combray).
I did.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 1:31am."Everybody who imitates Christ is a fake Jesus." –Alan Watts
PPU
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 11:33pm.I disagree, Phil.
Submitted by Jade on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 9:50pm.I don't think the fact that the ordinance is restricted to daytime is going to mean protection for the homeless. They are the intended targets, and they will be targeted. Note that the Mayor Mark This-isn't-about-the-Homeless Foutch was quoted in today's paper saying that this ordinance is designed to "get homeless people off the streets". I hope that anyone who has been doubting the dishonesty of the council's rhetoric thus far is paying attention.
Make no mistake, this ordinance will criminalize the homeless. Sitting on the sidewalk, leaving a backpack on the sidewalk, or asking for change is now punishable by 90 days in jail. The council members may talk pretty, but the city manager and the police chief know what the real purpose of this ordinance is, and now that it has been approved, they are the ones that matter.
We can work to bring down the ordinance at its "sunset" next year, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking we can ensure that it is fairly enforced in the meantime. I would encourage all homeless people in town to document police harrassment and file complaints diligantly. Phil, you have enough experience to know that it is unrealistic to expect that the homeless will not be affected by this.
We can argue tactics until we're blue in the face, but no matter how we approach it, we are in for a year of hard work.
Jade
If you are going to quote,
Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 10:12pm.If you are going to quote, you should do it responsibly. Here is a snippet of the article:
Mayor Mark Foutch, who has said the ordinance can help police stop troublemakers, added that it is a tool to take homeless people off the street who truly need help.
"I have positive hopes for the ordinance and the way we implement it," Foutch said. "I hope we will be patient and observant of how to help us and the police."
Sidewalk rules headed for test run - Matt Batcheldor, November 29th, 2006
Sue
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:44am.Mark recounted this history, and offered the new amendments as being a potential tool for police to get a person "who really needs help" off the streets. He implied that Sue was mentally ill, that she "knew how to answer the questions of the mental health workers" and that she defied control because she could not be caught 'being crazy' enough to imprison.
The intent is clear - Mark wants to help Sue. But what if Sue wants to die? What if Sue is 350 pounds of agonized lumbar and black skin and broken heart and crushed dreams who is not mentally ill, but tired of living in a dominant culture which is white and male?
What if the cow does not want to go back in the barn? What if she risks the wolf so she can live life, not merely survive it? What if she knows the snows will kill her and she welcomes the next turn of the wheel?
I did not know Sue. Long Hair did not know Sue. Mark did not know Sue. I'm not sure any of us did. But I shudder to think what culture I live in when my neighbor thinks he knows better than I do how I should live my life, such that he's willing to risk my mind and my liberty to ensure that I remain alive - straight jacket, prozac and all.
I'm not saying I've never considered autotermination - after all, I sized my rifle to make sure it would not reach my trigger finger and my mouth at the same time. But I'm definitely not amenable to the idea of becoming a ward of the state so that they can keep me 'alive' without my own volition. And I'm not too happy about others who use the grief of families to wrangle people into those hellholes we call psych wards. For too long, and some would say still, these are places where kids go for "willfullness," not organic brain disease.
Respect for others means respecting their choices. Sue made hers. Namaste, Sue.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
The streets of our city is
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:58am.Mark was misled anyway.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 3:27pm.Beyond that, it is important to note that this law does not change the fact that a person must be certified "immanently dangerous to self or others" to be involuntarily taken to the hospital. IF this law were to be used to target people like Sue, and it is VERY important that it not be used for that, it would result in little more than having Sue spend some time in jail.
We've (I mean we at B&R) got several extremely mentally ill friends in jail at the moment. They are in for nonviolent crimes. I'd love it if they were transfered from jail to the hospital. The hospital, while not exactly a place you'd want to be, isn't nearly as bad as jail, not to mention that it can offer some resources to help people get well. But the fact is that our criminal "justice" system fails to work responsibly with people with mental illness, and the results are horrifying. Inprisonment is not far from torture for a schizophrenic.
Mark's comment was very disturbing indeed.
The Canaanite's Call
Ok, he said "take" homeless
Submitted by Jade on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:54am.Jade
The liars need to be removed from their positions..
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:57am.It is very dangerous to have hackish dishonest people like this on our City Council..
This is just bad for Olympia.
Individuals who truly need
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 1:07am.Im getting tired of this..
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 1:10am.Does this ordinance target the homeless?
y/n
Ask me again in a month. I
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 2:21am.Ask me again in a month. I don't think you can accurately say who will be subject to the ordinance. It seems to me that many of you have already made up your minds about the issue and not a day of the ordinance has passed. Premature anticipation if you asked me.
RE: "I don't think you can accurately say who will be subject ."
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 3:00am.I can however responsibly quote:
"Mayor Mark Foutch, who has said the ordinance can help police stop troublemakers, added that it is a tool to take homeless people off the street.."
So on one hand you are advocating what Foutch is pitching, according to your dialog with Jade..
What was it again, a "safety issue.."
But on the other hand (when confronted), it becomes: I (me) cannot "accurately say who will be subject to the ordinance..."
And i am extra confused because I thought this was a "pedestrian" ordinance all along..
Care to clear it up for me there?
By the way,
RE: "It seems to me that many of you have already made up your minds about the issue and not a day of the ordinance has passed..."
Dont insult my intelligence with this drivel anymore..
Those are the writers words
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 4:17am.Those are the writers words in that article. You can ask Matt for Foutch's additional quotes. In the article Matt only included two quoted statements and neither of those two quotes are accurately depicted above by you or in Jade's post. Please look at the article and note the statements that are actually quoted vs. Matt's writings.
It's unfortunate that you can't see beyond your myopic view of the problem. It would have been 6-1 had Mah been present. That includes Messmer and Ware. Johnson is so far left he can't see center and I wouldn't expect him to have voted for the ordinance. I'm sure all of you know where I stand when it comes to Mr. Johnson. He does a wonderful job representing a minorty and a terrible job representing the majority. I find him to be a divider. You can probably say the same for those on the council you don't care for.
My position on this is still the same. Look at all of my posts, not just the ones this evening where I address specifics. I believe the ordinances were poorly written in their current form. I expect they will go through revision to include Ware's proposals. I support the intent of the ordinances if they truly address pedestrian safety and the well-being of all who frequent downtown.
Who are any of you to tell a person who goes downtown that they should set their feelings aside and feel safe? You don't walk in their shoes and you don't share their experiences. Their experiences and feelings of safety are theirs and theirs alone. Not yours. Enough people have addressed their concerns with the council that they felt the need to take action. The vote supports those claims. If those claims are false or purely manufactured then we have lots of work to do to replace the current council. It would have been irresponsible of them to not have at least looked into the more severe complaints and ask some questions. Ask the council to disclose their proof and do your own research on the communication.
RE: "He does a wonderful job representing a minorty.."
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 10:08am.This thing was "purely manufactured" by The Olympian.
Because they know that the people in this town overwhelmingly oppose this ordinance..
TJ represents the majority..(20 to 1 opposed at the hearing)
Just remember, Olympia is safer than Lacey..
Have have you ever once heard the Olympian express that fact?
Ill say it again, Olympia is extremely safe..
This was never about safety..
It was about commerce..
And it was about harrasing the homeless..
The people you are so enamoured with on the Council messed up big time passing this..
And they know it..
TJ what? Give me a
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 4:01pm.TJ what? Give me a break. So, you filled the council chambers with activists and people who oppose the ordinance. If you think your presence in numbers at a council forum implies MAJORITY, you're living in a dream world - your own little utopia. I was fortunate enough to be there and make it in. I did not speak, I e-mailed the council with support for the ordinances. I left immediately after Drew addressed the council, I had enough.
Listen, support for the ordinance can not and should not be quantified by hearing objectors (or supporters for that matter). It needs to be much more encompassing of a wider audience and that includes correspondence the council receives. It's all public record - you know how to get at it.
Bubbaz, when did Lacey become part of the conversation? I never mentioned the safety disparity between Olympia and Lacey.
Thank you EG that has been
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 4:49pm.I thought Drew was a good
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 5:03pm.I thought Drew was a good speaker and he presented his case well. I didn't know what to make of his analogy and at that point, though. After listening to what seemed like hundreds of people, it was time to make my way home and it happened to be right after Drew spoke. Nothing to do with him personally.
EH..
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 5:20pm.Sure,
Most people in Olympia would favor this..
Especially the parts that target the homeless..
Under the guise of "pedestrian" blocking..
Sorry, im a little not convinced..
But I do like UFO's..
Whatever..
Enough with my paranoid delusions of reality..
I like the ordinance the way it is now..
It isnt that bad, plus its a political liability..
Sounds good to me..
Lets move on..
Like a floating bubble or spaceship..
Thank you, Jade.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 11:24pm."Everybody who imitates Christ is a fake Jesus." –Alan Watts
Key points, well made
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 12:55am.Jade, this is indeed key.
What about the three people who stop on the sidewalk to discuss their next restaurant or bar choices? Along comes the downtown patrol, and lo! Here we have three abreast, taking up four of six feet in the walking zone. A sure case of pedestrian interference if ever there was one.
"Move along."
"Uh, we're just standing here."
"It's illegal. Do you have ID?"
"Yes, here."
(Takes ID)
Meanwhile, eight feet of the sidewalk are blocked as two police officers, three pedestrians, and a copwatcher block the sidewalk. No one wants to pass, because they:
1) are worried about getting in the shot of the video camera.
2) are worried about getting shot with a TASER.
3) know one of the pedestrians and owe him money.
4) all three.
So, are we better off? Worse? The same?
Who wins? The cops. Now they have an even better surefire way to collect IDs from people.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
I really doubt that it will
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 4:50pm.I thought I'd take a page out of stevenl's book
Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 2:38am."I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
A little clarity.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 3:38pm.I'm saying the ordinance is a bad one, and we should indeed try to overturn it. There are some effective tools for this, like litigation and maybe a referendum. Blocking the doors to the Capitol Theater, along with any other such hooliganism operating under the guise of direct action, is NOT an effective tool for this, and it will also very seriously hurt us when we try to work on other issues.
I'm also saying that it isn't nearly as bad as it appears. Though I share your disappointment and anger, Jade, I don't share your view that this law will out-and-out criminalize homelessness. A camping law would do that. This doesn't.
That's not to say it won't be abused by police. I think we have a lot of work to do to make sure that everyone knows their rights, and that everyone knows the limitations of this law. If we are effective at that, it really will be low impact.
I also think that the anger and the momentum this has stirred is valuable if we do a good job at channeling it. There's a lot more fucked up shit out there than this ordinance. In addition to trying to overturn the ordinance, and in addition to trying to minimize it if we fail, it is very important that we not lose sight of the bigger picture. We've got to use the anger out there to fuel positive change, and I'm a bit scared that we'll fail to do that if we get too tunnel visioned in on this particular ordinance.
The Canaanite's Call
Low impact??
Submitted by Jade on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 10:02pm.This law is the worst thing that has happened to Olympia in my lifetime of living here.
I agree that we should be strategic about opposing it, and use tactics that will be effective. But I do not agree for one heartbeat that it is symbolic, low impact, or meaningless.
I have not given up on stopping this law, but if we fail to overturn it, it will be the death sentence of my fair city.
Jade
Indeed
Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 10:14pm."I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
i agree drew!
Submitted by contron on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 5:22pm.from http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/summary.html
"An unfortunate trend in cities around the country over the past 25 years has been to turn to the criminal justice system to respond to people living in public spaces. This trend includes measures that target homeless persons by making it illegal to perform life-sustaining activities in public. These measures prohibit activities such as sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and begging in public spaces, usually including criminal penalties for violation of these laws. "
fromhttp://www.prisonactivist.org/copwatch/pubs/may94/homeles3.htm
" On three separate occasions, the Berkeley City Council discussed the proposed "Problematic Street Behavior" ordinances... sound familiar?
fromhttp://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0200/0208.htm
Many cities across the country have homeless laws, falling into a few general categories. Panhandling is restricted or banned altogether (Massachusetts passed a law of this kind several years ago but it was struck down by the state courts as unconstitutional). Anti-camping ordinances, such as in Austin, Texas, prohibit sleeping on streets or in parks after curfew or at all. And in many cities, the homeless are excluded from downtown areas and places where they congregate. Austin and Los Angeles, for instance, have no-standing zones and no-sitting areas where people may not linger. There are also such arcane laws as the prohibition of public parking lot crossing in Atlanta.
food not bombs for thought. also what's with the "greener" bashing? i am not a student i quit school along time ago but it's funny the groups of people in this town that get lumped together and isolated for criticism.
RE: "also what's with the "greener" bashing?.."
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 5:37pm.Its funny..
Evergreen catches alot of flack for providing all those jobs, degrees, and talent..
I just learned today that apparently "Greeners" are also a huge minority around here as well.
In theory, i guess certain City Council members could get by without their vote..
Lets find out..
Lol way to take it out of
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 5:43pm.Im just ranting..
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 5:45pm.Ignore me..
Better here than down at the
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 5:56pm.street rabble...
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 6:29pm.also what's with the
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 12/01/2006 - 5:43am.While "Greener" might be used to describe an actual student at TESC, it's also used to describe those who sympathize or allign themselves with ideologies and actions associated with The Evergreen student population.
Advocating a protest in front of the Capital Playhouse would fit the bill of a "Greener" activity, hence being lumped into the "Greener" category.
Green is good..
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Fri, 12/01/2006 - 12:12pm.forest canopy rocks
Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 11:26am.