The last week or two I've noticed

1. Those ineffective 'no panhandling' signs have sprung up at new locations--both approaches to the Chehalis River Bridge, and opposite the entrance to SS Mall. I wonder how much it costs in labor and materials to not only make the signs, but to install them? A complete waste of money, IMHO--look how the original two at Walmart and near the mission have eliminated panhandling at those locations. Not.

2. New graffiti and tagging is popping up all over Aberdeen. Most of it is illegible black stuff, but some is a bit more elaborate. There's something large and colorful on the Electric Building that you can see from the bridge ramps. Looks to be more than one new tagger in action.

And another panhandling sign at the exit to Olympic Gateway Mall. Just guessing, $250 each, installed--there's $1000 over and above the original 2 signs.

Those signs are another example of the mayor's non-effective management of the city, IMO.

The signs reportedly cost $32 to $53 . Doubt it cost that much to install them.



I agree, a waste of money, whatever the amount. The panhandlers aren't any more annoying than people holding signs for sales, tax levies, or political candidates.

One thing I know, if you never try, you will never make any mistakes.

Only the raw materials cost would be variable with size, so i have to assume that is the only 'cost' referred to. It doesn't factor in the cost of building and stocking the city sign shop, specialized machinery to make the sign, labor for the sign guy, and installation by a city employee using additional equipment--probably a lift truck. $32 to $53 just ain't gonna cut it.

Here's a comparable: the fire dept, with a crew of 3 and the ladder truck, responds to a house fire. They put out the fire using 1000 gallons of water that cost a penny a gallon. thus, the cost of materials to put out the fire was $10. Is that the true cost?

But, you're right--the true cost is not really the issue, it's the feeding of the egos that thought these signs were ever an intelligent idea that is the indicator of lack of management skills.

Because of the signs we now have an official policy regarding panhandlers. Before it was pretty much do what you thought was right. I am for the signs.

Official policy? Seriously? If the signs reflect an official city policy, what is the penalty for someone who violates that policy?

Personally, I would prefer to not encounter panhandlers at the major intersections, and I do give direct to charities and not the person on the street, but I don't need city signs telling me to make that choice.

Plus, cost of the signs and free speech issues aside, you'd think any thinking Christian or thinking conservative would be up in arms about the signs. After all, the signs tell you--as 'official city policy'--to not help your neighbor in need. If that level of 'official policy' is not unnecessary governmental intervention in people's lives, I don't know what is.

In short, those signs are wrong on every level of examination. But, that's just this liberal's two cents. It is a petty issue, so I'm done dwelling on it.

I would encourage more signs. If I was ever confronted by a panhandler in Aberdeen I would tell them my policy is to give that kind of money to the Union Gospel (which I still do). It is a much better way to get the money to those who seriously need it.

The sign mentions charities. I think it is well thought out.

Derelicts begging for money will go away if people follow these instructions. The only reason they are there is because there is money being donated.

Charities could do so much more with the extra money besides what it is usually used for: to buy drugs or beer.

The story I linked to says Aberdeen's signs "were inspired by signs found in Spokane." Looks like those signs were created by a private citizen, and not funded by the taxpayers.
" But something clicked on in the part of Fisher's brain that controls civic activism.
Fisher went home. He drew his own double-sided sign that featured the word "Panhandling" surrounded by a large red-slashed circle."

A majority of Aberdeen voters are quite content with the way the city's managed so don't expect any change. (There's probably a pun in there, somewhere.)

"No change! Your dollars could be used against us."

A majority of Aberdeen voters are quite content with the way the city's managed so don't expect any change. (There's probably a pun in there, somewhere.)

Certainly there is a joke in there somewhere.

I assume you refer to the last election results. It's always interesting to here someone's take on what conclusions to draw from some election outcome. Step by step deductive analysis is usually not a factor. To conclude that a majority of the citizens are happy with city government because Simpson was reelected assumes facts not in evidence. The only conclusion that can properly be drawn is that Simpson was more popular than Fritts. Simpson may weel have been more popular because Fritts simply rubbed people the wrong way.

I would support updating the sign a bit, instead of saying “don’t support panhandling”, just put up a mirror and the old adage “A fool and his money are soon parted”. Applies to both the giver and recipient of the change.

Read it again.

I said voters, not citizens, and content, not happy.

same difference

I'll let you guys talk about the panhandling signs, but I'll add to the graffiti...

Some of what I've seen has been artistic license by the tagger and some of it is pseudo-gang related. I say "pseudo" because it isn't very good nor imaginative, more copy cat than anything.

I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to copy or emulate Banksy or Fairly around here. There's a lot of blank space on the Harbor here.