Selective enforcement keeps the Olympia homeless worrying about more than the yellow reign of patrons

author : Wally Cuddeford topic : homelessness | Olympia City Council | Olympia Sidewalk Ordinance

Where the streets have no say: Selective enforcement keeps the Olympia homeless worrying about more than the yellow reign of patrons

by Wally Cuddeford

Recently, Olympia City Council members Jeff Kingsbury and Doug Mah co-sponsored proposed revisions to the city ordinances to discourage, what they call, "anti-social behavior" encountered downtown. The proposal would, among other things, make it illegal to sit, lie, vend, or solicit within six feet of the edge of a building. The proposal would only take effect within the downtown area, and has exemptions for people with disabilities, people waiting in long lines at businesses, and for people experiencing a medical emergency. Mayor Mark Foutch calls the new ordinance a "more certain tool to get groups of people to move along from in front of businesses or residences or other places where they've been harassing passersby and other people."

But this will not just affect the people who are committing the unwanted behavior. For those for whom the downtown area is home, the proposal is akin to an eviction notice. Having to sit at least six feet out from any business downtown puts one out under the elements. The proposal also outlaws begging for money (or as the proposal puts it, "aggressive panhandling"), an income staple for the homeless.

"Regardless of what's being said, it's going to affect the homeless," said Selena Kilmoyer, volunteer at Bread and Roses downtown, who recalled some of the history of the city's attempts to drive the homeless out of public spaces. "Two years ago, Sylvester Park was a big hub for the homeless. The State Police, enforcing the wishes of the business owners and others, basically cleared the park of the homeless. Then, they moved to the IT [Intercity Transit] station . . . and with different techniques, the police drove them out of there too, and onto the sidewalks of 4th Avenue."

The co-sponsors of the new ordinance say it has nothing to do with the homeless. They say they are taking these actions because of repeated complaints from downtown patrons and businesses regarding lewd and threatening behavior on the part of unidentified people. Examples cited were public urination, aggressive panhandling, the blocking of sidewalks, and even the harassment and ridicule of people with disabilities.

Many people against the ordinance claim to have seen well-dressed bar patrons with cars urinating in alleys downtown.

Olympia resident Phan Nguyen claims to have been the target of racial epithets at Arts Walk and Lakefair. "Are you going to get rid of Arts Walk because someone had a bad experience [there]?"

The proposed ordinance does not address most of the undesired behavior that is cited, because most of the undesired behavior is already illegal. The proposal outlaws behavior supporters deem to be related, such as sitting on the public sidewalk, in hopes that it would deter the actual targeted behavior. But all the behaviors listed are staples of being homeless. In effect, the ordinance will criminalize the homeless for being homeless.

"I can empathize with business owners and the city council and law enforcement," Kilmoyer continues, "because they are extremely frustrated. But penalizing the poor is not the answer to this particular problem."

Many people spoke out in regards to the measure at the weekly City Council meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 21. The hearing was standing room only, with people massed all the way back into the lobby and out the door. A couple dozen or so people were stuck outside in the cold during the beginning of the hearing, because the building's authorized capacity had been reached.

While well over 100 people signed up to speak at the hearing, only 82 people got their chance. 64 of those 82 voiced their opposition to the proposal. Many names, when called out, went unanswered. One individual pointed out that the Salvation Army's check-in time is 9:00, while the hearing lasted past 11:30, which suggests that many of those unanswered names were homeless themselves.

Many of the proposal's supporters said it has nothing to do with the homeless. Speaking of the undesired behavior, Mr. Foutch said, "There's no evidence that the people who were doing the kinds of things I described are, in fact, homeless or poor." Supporters maintained that their ire is directed at the "anti-social behavior," and not at the homeless.

Matthew Green, former City Council member, had a different take on the matter. "Of course this is targeted at poor people. That's why there's an exception for people who are about to go into a business and buy something. Of course this is not about behavior, because all the behaviors and all the crimes that were mentioned earlier tonight are already covered by other criminal ordinances. Of course this is not about blocking the sidewalk because the people [who write] angry letters to the editor don't write angry letters about how 'That dang sidewalk is blocked.' It's about who's blocking it."

Many people in opposition to the proposal held signs that said, "Downtown is for everyone." Some of the proposal's supporters tried to use that message by highlighting what they called "anti-social behavior" on the part of downtown loiterers. Their message was that, if something isn't done about this behavior, they won't feel comfortable going downtown anymore. Doug DeForrest, who spoke out in support of the ordinance, said "We have a right to be there without being panhandled ... or having comments made about us." Alternately, many people who opposed the new ordinance used the message of opposing "anti-social" behavior, saying that prohibiting people from being downtown is what's really "anti-social."

Opponents began picking away at the technicalities of the proposal. What about employees who are taking their breaks? What about the Salvation Army Santas? What about parents who are accompanying their children in lines for movie and concert tickets?

This brings us to the crux of the issue: selective enforcement. When people point out that patrons of businesses could be targeted by these ordinances, the general response from everyone is, "Well, of course they're not going to get kicked out of downtown."

This attitude betrays the notion that the proposed ordinances are intended to give the police the power to chase people out of downtown who are not there to patronize businesses, while leaving alone those who are downtown to spend money. Writing such a rich versus poor dichotomy into law would be a huge red flag for civil libertarians and advocates for the poor and could be easily challenged in a court of law. If such a rich/poor discriminative measure were to be enacted, it would have to be done in such a way where basic behaviors such as sitting down on a public sidewalk are made universally illegal, and the police are expected to enforce selectively, however they or their bosses wish.

And how would the police know who's an acceptable business patron and who's an unacceptable loiterer? Speaking for myself, I've been harassed by the police on occasion for loitering around in public spaces without buying anything. Never once did the police ask to see a sales receipt before they issued their ultimatum that I move. Somehow, they looked at me and just knew.

Mayor Foutch started the hearing by saying the sidewalk areas in front of downtown businesses have always belonged to the property owners, even though the public have maintained it for them since the mid-1850s. He has said that the public has since been "obligated to manage that right of way in the general public interest."

Many people at the hearing spoke of how much they love Olympia and its culture. But the culture of downtown Olympia is only maintained by the ability of people to exist, regardless of whether they are fueling money or work into local businesses. By outlawing the right of people to just be (regardless of their usefulness to the business sector), the Olympia culture people love would be strangled. The ordinance would, in effect, turn downtown Olympia into a shopping center, welcoming only employees and customers, with all the culture and uniqueness of Westfield Shopping Center. It's hard to call anything that receives such resounding opposition as being in the "general public interest."

Wally Cuddeford is an Olympia resident, US Navy veteran, and organizer with the South Sound Project for Military Resistance and Justice, and the Port Militarization Resistance.