Watch out! He might…give you the peace sign.?Tim Burgess’s ban on aggressive panhandling within 15 feet of ATMs and parking meters is premised on the idea that the public is concerned about belligerent begging. But the people who actually track this behavior have data that says that’s just not true.If you click here you’ll see a spreadsheet entitled “DSA panhandlers list.” (Warning: If you don’t want to open Excel, don’t click.)It’s like an anthropological study of the downtown homeless population. A back-of-the-baseball-card look at 27 (now 26, since one of the counted is now deceased) people who ask for money; who they are, what they look like, where they beg and, even, whether or not they do so aggressively.(Included among them: Jonas, the “Smile Guy” at First and Marion who SW profiled in our “Best Of” issue.)Downtown Seattle Association, the makers of the spreadsheet, have yet to return a phone call. So I can’t say exactly why they put it together last July. But I can field a guess.They’re an advocacy group protecting the interests of downtown business owners. But they also employ the yellow-vested guys and gals you see at Westlake giving old ladies directions. Who are a link between the DSA and the social safety net that helps take care of the city’s homeless.In other words, I’m not sure why the DSA wants to catalogue the people who ask for spare change. But I suspect they have their reasons, both good and otherwise.Burgess’s claims don’t match up with reality.The most interesting thing about what they’re observations show, however, is that Burgess’s legislation cracking down on the weakest members of society is based on a public perception that is at odds with his own data: only three of the 26 panhandlers are labeled as “aggressive.”In response to DSA’s list, Burgess had this to say:The list shows the same thing we’ve heard from others which is that the individuals on the street who are aggressive and causing problems are a very small segment of the population. The proposed aggressive solicitation ordinance focuses narrowly on the behaviors of this small segment in order to make the streets safer for everyone.But as PubliCola has already pointed out, Burgess’s ordinance would actually be a lot less effective than the laws already on the books. What’s more, because it’s written so broadly, his added layer of unnecessary legislation would have anything but a narrow focus. (See: Girl Scouts, cookies.)There are a lot of reasons not to like Burgess’s bill. It’s redundant, possibly unconstitutional and the sweep of its unintended consequences will mostly clothesline the poor and resourceless.But worst of all, it’s a clumsy “solution” for a problem that doesn’t exist. At least not the way Burgess sees it. Now if only there were a way to ban aggressive legislation…