This week the Seattle City Council attempted to pass an ordinance to curb aggressive solicitation on Seattle streets. Mayor Mike McGinn vowed to veto the bill if it crossed his desk. When the Council passed the bill, 5 votes to 4, the Mayor indeed put in the veto. Kudos to the Council. Raspberries to the foolish mayor.

Aggressive solicitation, i.e. blatant panhandling or the obstruction of individuals by other individuals on city streets or near places of business is wrong and should not be tolerated. It impedes people carrying on their daily lives and hinders businesses by discouraging patronage. It is the city government’s responsibility to protect its citizens and businesses from this sort of harassment. To do otherwise is to encourage the behavior.

Opponents of the proposed ordinance disagree. They claim that putting restrictions on aggressive solicitors is to deny them their 1st Amendment Right. They also say that cracking down on aggressive solicitation in Seattle will move the degeneracy to the suburbs. They further claim that time and money wasted on this ordinance would be better spent on social services to help the panhandlers. Those people are as stupid as the mayor.

This proposed ordinance has nothing to do with restricting people’s individual rights, targeting the homeless, or redirecting social service funds away from the needy. Its goal is to make living, visiting, and working in Seattle a more pleasant and safe experience for everyone. Those who cannot see that intention are politically correct imbeciles.

A silly yet truthful analogy would be to compare these aggressive solicitors to middle school bullies. Just because they have a reason for acting the way they do does not make it right nor does it excuse officials from putting a stop to the antics. Schools shouldn’t tolerate their students aggressively demanding money from other students nor should the City allow panhandlers to aggressively solicit or ominously stand guard at an ATM machine.

“But what about the polite solicitor?” one might ask, “the person merely sitting on the sidewalk with a “Feed the Homeless” sign. I counter: “Would you want a solicitor outside your house or apartment all day? Would you want a solicitor camped outside your business? Or conversely, would you want the City to ask them to move on?” The answers are obvious. Too bad our Mayor can’t see them.

Certainly this bill is silly in that its recourse on offenders is a $50 fine. But the community service alternate penalty makes sense. And most importantly, the spirit of the bill is just: to make Seattle a cleaner, nicer, less intimidating place for all. Having a law that intends to move solicitors off the streets and toward one of the City’s numerous social service centers can only be a good thing. Hopefully Seattle figures that out.