I know a lot has been said about this, so I'll be direct.

You do not pass a measure like that over the cacophony of objections that were raised, without actually discussing these objections. Not unless you want a fight, or you have some damn solid moral ground. And since it was the moral-minded Olympia community that was doing the objecting, I don't see such ground.

The analogy of Jim Crow is right on. In the south, the Grandfather Clause was enacted when slavery was formally abolished, and when rich landowners would all qualify and freed slaves would all fail to qualify. The argument was later made that the Grandfather Clause was fair because it applied to everyone. The same goes for the Poll Tax, literacy tests, "Separate But Equal" schooling, the Defense of Marriage Act, and racist airport security. That double-standard was what made Jim Crow what it was. When you say "Jim Crow," you refer to that double-standard.

The "friendly amendments" were insulting. The nighttime clause was a joke. So now the homeless only have to worry for their safety 18 hours a day, and not 24? The sunset clause was just as intolerable. So now police have only 11 months to chase all the homeless out of town, instead of being able to do this at their leisure? And "busking permits"? A Poll Tax, no matter how minimal, is still a Poll Tax.

Read more...

Which brings me to my next point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Laura Ware just assume her "friendly amendments" would be an acceptible compromise (if that was her intent) without soliciting any response? All night long, we heard well-off people talk about how much they do for the homeless, and listing how much they donate to charity. This smacks of the old attitude of "I'm a good white person. I do so much for the poor helpless negroes." It was this attitude that inspired Malcolm X to blanketly condemn all white people as "devils," to make sure nobody lapsed into self-acquittal.

If you want to help the homeless, listen to what they have to say. And they came out and told you exactly what they wanted. The homeless community want's respect. If your charity is to be doled out in such an insulting way, then it is not wanted. The homeless are not pitiful souls who would not exist without the charity of good rich folk. Homeless people are people. Some are very hard workers. (Contrary to popular belief, "hard work" does not always elevate your social status.) People in trouble don't need charity. People in trouble need Solidarity.

But the issue goes far deeper than just the homeless. This is an attempt to placate people who have irrational fears about the homeless, and express their irrational fears in the form of taking their money elsewhere. It is unfortunate that some people harbor such irrational fears about the homeless, just as it is unfortunate that some people harbor such irrational fears about blacks, muslims, and homosexuals. But the proper response is not to react positively to those fears, no matter how much money is involved. It is to treat these feelings as the irrational fears they are, and to show that punishing others for one's own insecurities will not be tolerated.

As TJ Johnson pointed out at the meeting, all the evidence in favor of this measure is anecdotal. There is no study that says that downtown Olympia is in some crisis (although somebody from the city said they would produce such a study as soon as possible). We hear stories of some supposed flood of e-mails in support of the measure. I couldn't imagine a flood of e-mails of the magnitude that would outweigh the public outpouring of opposition (the outpouring we are able to see as opposed to the one we couldn't).

And then there's stories of people being harassed by strangers on the street. This is not to say that such incidents have never happened. It is to say that such incidents are not necessarily indicative of the norm, just because they happened to you or someone you know. I know a LOT of people (myself included) who have been harassed by the police for no legitimate reason. But now, one side has been granted a blank check, and folks are not happy. Imagine if you complained to the City Council about somebody harassing you downtown, and they responded with a measure that said "Now anyone can harass you as they please and you will be prosecuted for it when they do."

Passing this ordinance, especially as it was passed, was nothing less than a declaration of war on the homeless community of Olympia. This is not an exaggeration. Patrons of businesses speak about the inconvenience of stepping over people in the streets. The homeless have to worry about freezing to death, starving to death, and getting beaten to death, on top of the daily harassment. For the homeless, this is life and death.

The proper response to such a declaration of war is not to stand by and allow this act to be forced upon us, nor is it to make some symbolic act of protest so that we feel like "good whites." The proper response is to make this measure completely unworkable for its entire duration, through a multitude of efforts. If it was done to increase revenue, we should do what we can to tank downtown businesses (except those that openly oppose the measure and will refuse to enforce it). If it was done to sanitize downtown so it will appear "safer" to scared suburbanites, our goal should be to make downtown as scary as possible. (Did somebody say "Mystery Direct Action, Sylvester Park, Saturday at Noon"?) And if it was done to tell one group of people "Downtown is for everyone" while telling another group to get lost, our goal should be to make downtown uninhabitable for all. But most importantly, our goal should be to get this repealed, either before or after it takes effect, and to quash any dream the City Council has of trying to force through anti-homeless legislation like this ever again.

You have two months, folks. And whatever you do, don't consult the City Council before doing any of these things. Surprise them! Keep 'em guessing! Entertain them with your direct action antics! After all, they did declare war.