Comments

1
Because the majority of the people issued notices and later accused of violating their sit/lie notice are homeless they cannot afford legal representation. Because Kuykendal and cronies at the DA's office and community court have learned from the Drug Free Zone Debacle that you DO NOT want people to get free attorneys (who may occasionally do their job and fight unjust laws) these are all charged as "violations". Violations mean that no jail time is possible and the worst penalty is just a fine, so Reese is being disingenuous at best when he says no one challenges the law. He knows perfectly well the system was set up to avoid legal challenges. No one possibly could because no lawyers are taking the case. It doesn't help when the ACLU is supporting the clearly unconstitutional process either.
2
Matt,

As you worked hard to make the rounds to all the tables today, it's understandable that you weren't able to hear the entirety of everyone's comments. I'm happy to report that the women at my table, the aforementioned retail employees, were not unequivocal supporters of Sit-Lie. They recognized that its existence has not addressed the concerns that many people have about certain behaviors, and were informed by a former police officer that there are laws - not Sit/Lie - that can be used to deal with spitting, grabbing, harassing, and, quite handily, sex on the sidewalk.

These women also expressed support for the plight of homeless individuals, and recognized their need to rest and sleep in a City that doesn't yet have the affordable housing stock available to make sure everyone has a safe place to be. I appreciated their willingness to engage in the discussion, to ask questions, and to really listen.

Thanks for following the story, Matt. I hope it draws others into the conversation, because at Sisters Of The Road, we believe that this community wants the best for all of its citizens, that we can learn from our mistakes, and that we have the wisdom to find the solutions together.
3
The conversation ...
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
4
Your colleagues at the Willy Week are reporting that Commish Nick Fish is leaning in favor of sit/lie. Your impression, based on his questions, is that he's against it? Can someone nail down where, exactly, he stands on this and get him on the record?

And thank you for following this story.
5
I think Amanda misunderstood Fish. He told her: β€œI’m very concerned that [the ordinance] is part of a carefully crafted compromise,” Fish says. β€œWe need to make sure that all the pieces of the compromise reached are honored.”

He also quoted 88 percent of the cites going to homeless people. Neither statement, I think, implies support of the ordinance. In fact, I think, given Andrea Meyer's statement about us succeeding with only one of the five aspects of the ordinance, that Fish, like Meyer, is trying to come up with a demonstrable reason to vote against its continuance.

I'll go ask him for clarification this morning.
6
The Flip-Flopping of a Fish:

[I think Amanda misunderstood Fish.]
Matt, unfortunately you misunderstood Fish: he is being VERY clear telling you EXACTLY what he thinks- "that this is a carefully crafted compromise to be concerned of", and "we need to make sure that all the pieces of the compromise reached are HONORED."
HELLO.
He is as slippery as they come, he is of the privileged elite line of famous senators, bankers, and international traitors who supported and profited from the Nazis. He is related to Prescott, GWH, and George Bush himself, among other notable characters. His father is an adviser to GEORGE SOROS himself.

HE IS A SLIMY FAKE, and he will bend like a jellyfish any way the prevailing wind blows.
Right now it's blowing toward corrupt complicity, but if the populace hold him accountable, he will squeal like a PIG. (no offense to genuine pigs everywhere!)
7
Alright, alright, less of the rhetoric, thank you. Stay on topic, please.
8
THIS IS THE TOPIC!

HE is a FAKE and he will say WHATEVER the pressing questioner wants to hear.
HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED and must be watched like a hawk 24/7 for schemin', dealin', and treasonin'.

HE is a wolf in sheep's clothing, or a fish in a slick suit.
Don't give him an inch, cause he will take a MILE.
The only solution to dealing with the likes of him is to STRONG-ARM him into doing the RIGHT thing for THE PEOPLE.
9
I'll try to avoid the snark as best I can, but one reason that "everyone" there was negative on it is that many of the people who support it are busy on a Monday afternoon.

This law is problematic for sure, but I support it. I work, eat, and do personal business downtown every day. I don't really want to return to the days of four street kids and two dogs and their giant packs splayed out all over 3/4's of a sidewalk. It blocks people who have to use the sidewalks. And yes, its bad for business and tourism - and those are relevant concerns.

The law is enforced against the homeless because that was the intention. I'm not sure why we all have to act like babes in the woods on that one. Other folks don't sit around on the sidewalks very much. The sidewalks I see are about 40% spit and 40% cigarette butts.
10
It's good that Amanda Fritz has taken up the issue of signs and sidewalk cafes - the majority of the actual sidewalk obstruction is by signs and sidewalk cafes (Pinocchio's on Salmon is pretty bad, as is the infamous Greek Cuisina).

The actual sidewalk space "blocked" by homeless people is minimal. It's just that they're so unsightly and icky!
11
Blabby, I hope the economy doesn't implode on YOU, and you have to eat every word you say for want of real food when YOUR ass is homeless and on the street.

GOD HELP US.
have we become COMPLETELY soulless???

we need serious ETHICS CLEANSING.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.