Spokane’s most distinguished state legislator didn’t mince words in expressing her disdain for a new Spokane ordinance aimed at discouraging downtown panhandlers.
Editor’s note–When an assistant to state Senator Lisa Brown read the following statement into the record Monday night, the wave of applause was such that Council President Ben Stuckart called for a recess. The council later voted to approve a “compromise” ordinance that imposed the tighter restrictions on panhandling around the downtown core, instead of the City as a whole.–tjc
City Council Testimony of Senator Lisa Brown
20 August 2012
Good evening. I’m sorry I cannot be with you in person tonight, and I thank you for accepting my testimony in absentia.
Over the last twenty years, I have supported budgets and legislation to make our community a safer and more prosperous place to live. As a fellow legislator, I understand how difficult it is to balance the many needs of a community, including the age-old question of rights versus safety. In some cases, this dichotomy is very real. But the ordinance before the council tonight gives me pause.
If this is about safety: Do we fear for the Guild School volunteers when they ask for pennies on the road? Do the Firefighters pose any risk to themselves or others when it’s time to “Fill the Boot?”
State Sen. Lisa Brown
Why are we so quick to question the rights of those least able to defend themselves? When we look around at our community, are we so frightened of one another that we would criminalize the simple act of begging?
I believe that fundamentally, this is about rights. And the ordinance before the council tonight prioritizes the freedom to avoid the face of poverty over the simple right to ask for help.
The first amendment is in our constitution for a reason: to ensure that we elected leaders can never infringe on the free speech of our electorate, no matter how much we may not like who they are or what they have to say.
Right now, the Supreme Court recognizes the free speech of corporations, even in the form of unlimited financial campaign contributions! This body has defended that interpretation. But now we are questioning whether or not to extend basic speech to the most downtrodden and vulnerable of our fellow human beings.
Why are we so quick to question the rights of those least able to defend themselves? When we look around at our community, are we so frightened of one another that we would criminalize the simple act of begging?
If this council is going to create exceptions in the ordinance for “desirable” solicitors while criminalizing those deemed undesirable, then that says a lot about our community. I believe this is wrong even if it’s done on a technicality—for example, by prohibiting panhandling only on those streets on which our homeless sleep.
But if the council decides that the blight of the poor is so gruesome to look upon that it must be pushed out of sight, and charitable causes with them, then that says a lot about our community as well.
I believe the Guild School and the Firefighters should be able to ask drivers for change wherever they find themselves in this beautiful city, and so should anyone else.
Thank you.