Photo by Luke Thomas
May 21, 2010
Opponents say law is unnecessary because of existing laws, vulnerable to abuse,
and would have a detrimental impact on San Francisco culture
The Public Safety Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will hold a third hearing on the proposed Sit/Lie ordinance during a 10:00 am meeting on Monday. It is expected that the proposed ordinance will move on from the committee for a vote at the full Board. The measure, which is co-sponsored by Mayor Newsom and Supervisor Alito-Pier and supported by Police Chief Gascón, would ban sitting or lying on any sidewalk in San Francisco between the hours of 7am and 11pm.
Monday’s hearing will be a continuation from a previous hearing on May 10th during which Supervisor David Campos asked representatives of the Mayor’s office and the Police Department why the Sit/Lie law was needed when numerous enforceable laws already prohibit aggressive behaviors on public sidewalks.
“When pressed by Supervisor Campos, neither the Mayor’s office nor the police could cite any language in the existing laws or in the SFPD General Orders that prevent the police from enforcing those laws to address problem behaviors on sidewalks. If proponents cannot provide an explanation for why this new ordinance is needed, then it is clear we should not pass sit-lie into law,” said Andy Blue of the Stand Against Sit Lie Coalition.
The ordinance is opposed by numerous organizations including the ACLU, San Francisco Labor Council, the San Francisco Democratic Party, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, La Raza Centro Legal, the Coalition on Homelessness, Pride at Work, The Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, and numerous other LGBT, labor, faith-based and community organizations.
Opponents of the law say it is unconstitutional, highly vulnerable to abuse, unnecessary because of existing laws, and — as was made clear in a Planning Commission Hearing — in direct contradiction to San Francisco’s general plan guidelines for use of sidewalks as public space. Opponents believe the law would be used to target the City’s most vulnerable residents including the homeless, day laborers, LGBT youth, etc. Opponents also believe it would have a detrimental impact on the lively street culture of performers, artists, food etc. that makes San Francisco such an extraordinary city and which draws visitors from around the world.
“Our experience has been again and again that San Franciscans do not support this law when they learn what it’s really about. We are looking forward to another public hearing where it will again be made clear that this law is a bad idea for San Francisco,” said Mr. Blue.
WHAT: Hearing on proposed Sit/Lie Ordinance before the Public Safety Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
WHEN: Monday, May 24 at 10:00 am.
WHERE: San Francisco City Hall, Board Chambers, RM 250
WHY: The members of the Public Safety Committee will hear from opponents and proponents of the Sit/Lie ordinance to determine if they will recommend the ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors.
The Hunger Site
May 24, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The mayor has announced that he will bypass the board of supes and take the Civil Sidewalks Law directly to the people.
Opponents of the measure have made a serious tactical blunder. They should have brought forward a sensible alternative of their own to the board.
Instead they denounced the measure as a police-state tactic. As an alternative, they proposed yet another jaw-flapping task force. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!
The Civil Sidewalks Law will become the defining issue in the supervisorial election this November. Candidates for supe will be grilled on the matter again and again. It won’t go away. The media will see to that.
The measure will pass handily at the polls, just as Care Not Cash did, after then-supe Gavin Newsom decided to bypass the board and take it directly to the people.
Candidates for supe who come out strongly against the measure will face a serious handicap. It will be the major reason why Rafael Mandelman will be defeated in the supe race in district eight, which includes the Castro.
Residents of the Castro are totally disgusted with the migratory addicts and alcoholics roosting on the sidewalks. The Monty-Python antics of Tommi Avicolli Mecca and his friends against the measure only served to reinforce the bad image of the sidewalk squatters and the cluelessness of the apologists on their behalf.
Similarly for district six (Chris Daly’s turf). The more strongly any candidate adopts Daly’s overt hostility to the measure, the more of a handicap such a candidate will face at the polls.
The Daly era is over. There will be a major power shift at the board, thanks to the Civil Sidewalks issue.
It’s amazing to see how readily the measure’s opponents have played into the mayor’s hand.
Honestly, I have to wonder if most of them weren’t stoned out of their minds when they planned their tactics.
May 24, 2010 at 1:55 am
So this ordnance is a classicism ordnance Ruth? Sounds suspect.
May 24, 2010 at 12:56 am
Amend to include ‘Clean Cops’ provision,
‘Under penalty of immediate termination It shall henceforth be mandatory that all employees of the SFPD be they sworn officers, civilians or private contractors are required by law to submit to a once-yearly drug screen that will include tests for steroids and Human Growth Hormones.’
I’ll vote for a Sit/Lie Law with this as a provision. Most cops will too and it will greatly improve the force.
Bring up Buster Posey!
h.
May 23, 2010 at 5:42 pm
In a post above, Jerry Jarvis says:
“If it bothers you so much about a need for the police to enforce the already in place laws, step up to the plate and become the one who files the complaint. Be a good citizen and go to court Ruth.”
I see you’ve missed a lot of posts on this subject, both here and elsewhere.
Allow me to repeat what has oft been pointed out:
During the peak of the drug-dealing season in the summer, residents and merchants along Haight Street have days where they have to call the police four or five times a day because of problems with the migratory addicts and alcoholics who flock here.
If we followed through with the system, testifying, etc., we’d have to spend all day, day after day, in court. The police are paid to do this work. Civilians shouldn’t have to do it for them.
And then, in any case, the defendants would be out on the street again in a day or so. Some of these folks have been arrested and/or cited hundreds of times in a year.
The Civil Sidewalks Law seeks to avoid going to court on the part of everybody involved. It gives the police the authority, acting on their own, to direct sidewalks squatters to move along. That’s it. It emphasizes warnings, not criminal prosecutions.
Under the current circumstances, that’s about the most that can be hoped for – keep the addicts and alcoholics moving along, without colonizing public spaces as their own turf.
The proposed law is not a panacea, but it will provide some small, welcome relief to marginal neighborhoods that are overwhelmed by migratory addicts and alcoholics.
The residents would be grateful for this small bit of help.
May 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm
If it bothers you so much about a need for the police to enforce the already in place laws, step up to the plate and become the one who files the complaint. Be a good citizen and go to court Ruth.
May 22, 2010 at 8:24 pm
The NY Times has just published an article about the proposed Civil Sidewalks Law, featuring Starchild as a leading spokesperson for the opposition.
Think about what’s happening here. After the supes’ Public Safety Committee defeats the measure on Monday, it will head for the November ballot. Along the way, it will become the defining issue for what constitutes progressive politics in SF during this election cycle.
At the head of the progressive parade, attacking the law, and defining SF progressive politics in the process, will be Starchild and Chris Daly.
Is everybody happy with this development?
I know that the supporters of the measure are.
May 22, 2010 at 1:22 pm
The former law made it illegal even to be standing. I oppose such a law.
The former law allowed for citations or arrests of first-time offenders. The present law requires a warning only for first-time offenders.
By the way, I just came back from the Castro. Opponents of the Civil Sidewalks Law were handing out a leaflet designed to win over passers-by to their view.
The leaflet features a big hand-drawn butt (wearing denim) with the words “Using This Ain’t No Crime.” The slogan at the bottom of the leaflet is “Sit/lie my ass.”
Like all the tactics now being used by opponents, this one will appeal to true believers who have already made up their minds against the law. But its crudeness is not likely to appeal to thoughtful undecided people who are weighing the issue.
This whole scene is what we saw with the opponents of Care Not Cash – crude, self-righteous posturing, aimed at shoring up the true believers, while alienating the undecideds and demonizing supporters.
The opponents, then and now, all appear to be taking their cues from the style of Chris Daly.
That style doesn’t play outside district six; and even there, it is about to pass into oblivion.
May 22, 2010 at 9:57 am
So basically they dredged up an old law used to criminalize gays, changed a few of the words and made it more PC, and dragged it out as a wedge issue against another class of “undesireables.” You’re not fooling anyone, Arthur.
Also, I never heard anyone claim that the law was repealed before Harvey was assassinated. From the start, the opponents of the law have correctly pointed out that Harvey fought against a similar law, but didn’t get his wish until after he died. That remains true.
May 21, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Take a look at the Facebook Website for “San Francisco Stands Against Sit/Lie.”
Tommi Avicolli Mecca has announced a demonstration tomorrow (Saturday) at Harvey Milk Plaza in the Castro against the measure.
Some weeks ago, Mecca claimed that Harvey led the effort to successfully repeal a sit-lie law in the 70s. However, Mecca overlooked the fact that the law was rescinded after Harvey was assassinated (oops!).
Now Mecca has adjusted his claim a bit. He says that Harvey opposed the same law in the 70s. However, according to the mayor’s office, that 70s law was a no-standing, no-sitting, no-lying law.
The present measure says nothing about standing. Also, the measure in the 70s imposed criminal penalties immediately. The current measure requires a warning only for first-time offenders.
Finally, Mecca says there will be an interfaith service for Harvey and his struggle against the 70s measure. However, Harvey was an atheist (as am I).
How can these folks pass each other on the sidewalk and not immediately break out into laughter?
May 21, 2010 at 7:16 pm
In a post above, Andy Blue says:
“when pressed at the last hearing neither the police nor the Mayor’s staff could point to any language in the existing laws or in the SFPD’s general orders that prevent the police from using those laws to address problem behaviors.”
Andy, you apparently left the chamber after the exchange between David Campos and the police brass and the mayor’s staff. It’s true that the police brass got flustered by Campos’ questions and that they mayor’s staff was poorly prepared.
However, after you and Campos had left the chamber, Ass’t D.A. Paul Henderson clarified the situation. He’s the person who handles most prosecutions for quality of life citations in the courts.
Henderson stated that the SF courts interpret General Order 6.11 as requiring the police to have a civilian complaint in order to cite someone for obstructing the sidewalk.
You and David Campos may disagree with the courts’ interpretation of General Order 6.11. However, the courts are the ones who make decisions in these cases.
If you doubt what I say, go back and look at the video of the hearing. Henderson testified later in the day. Campos was not there to hear what he said. Campos made his grand speeches and then walked out.
I have personally witnessed incidents in the Haight where the problem mentioned by Henderson came into play.
Neighbors call the police because a group of migratory addicts and alcoholics are squatting on the sidewalk. The police come and ask the addicts and alcoholics to move along.
The addicts and alcoholics say, “Do you have a civilian complaint?” The police say “no.” The addicts and alcoholics say “We’re not leaving. The law says we have a right to stay here.”
The police say “Okay” and leave. The group of addicts and alcoholics continues to grow.
This is an intolerable situation. The law needs to be changed to correct it.
Stand up for civility and safety on San Francisco’s sidewalks.
May 21, 2010 at 4:09 pm
It doesn’t matter how many time the proponents of Sit-Lie claim that the police do not have the “tools” they need to address aggressive behaviors on our city’s sidewalks — it simply isn’t true.
That’s precisely why when pressed at the last hearing neither the police nor the Mayor’s staff could point to any language in the existing laws or in the SFPD’s general orders that prevent the police from using those laws to address problem behaviors.
And the fact is, the police cite people for sidewalk obstruction and other behaviors without citizen complaints all the time.
But don’t take my word for it. Read this report co-authored by Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.
http://www.standagainstsitlie.org/2010/05/14/new-report-proves-police-do-not-need-sit-lie/
May 21, 2010 at 3:28 pm
It’s worse than you think,
The cops use this, “We gotta have a citizen complaint.” thing all the time to keep from doing their jobs. I watched a couple of cops come into my building and ask if anyone would file a complaint against a tenant one of them had said was a heroin dealer. They said it in front of a lobby full of people. One of whom was the accused dealer.
With bombings all over the news I asked a cop working on the Mayor’s security detail if he wasn’t concerned with a seemingly homeless guy with a heaping shopping cart parked near the Mayor’s vehicle. He told me that he wouldn’t investigate unless I signed a complaint.
The friggin’ cops want to force the public into harm’s way. They don’t want to deal with the trouble and paperwork that would come from actually doing their jobs.
And … a big ‘and’ … 1,800 out of 2,000 of them are great guys and gals who’d gladly do what they’re paid for. It’s the top brass and a small clique of POA thugs who keep SF law enforcement smelling to the high heavens. To get rid of them we need a new Mayor.
Newsom for Lt. Governor!!
h.
May 21, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Thank you for the reminder of the hearing by the supes’ Public Safety Committee on the Civil Sidewalks Law (formerly known as the Sit-Lie Law) this coming Monday.
As your article points outs, opponents are still claiming that the law is unnecessary. That’s not true.
Existing rules that govern police procedures deny that sidewalks as such can be obstructed. Also, the SF courts have interpreted sidewalk-obstruction rules as requiring a civilian complaint before police can direct sidewalk squatters to move along.
General Order 6.11 of the Police Commission flatly states that “a street or sidewalk cannot be obstructed, only a person.” This is an absurd declaration. Migratory addicts and alcoholics colonize sidewalks as a pattern of turf-taking, even when no one else is present. This General Order is blind to the turf-taking situation.
I tried to get the Police Commission to rescind this language in the mid-90s. They refused, saying it was the result of a court settlement, and that they could not readily rescind it.
The same General Order also stipulates that police may not direct sidewalk squatters to move along on their own but “shall make reasonable efforts to identify, but at least, must describe person(s) who were obstructed by the party to be arrested or cited.”
Ass’t D.A. Paul Henderson has testified that the SF courts interpret this stipulation as requiring a formal civilian complaint before the police can act. Otherwise, the officers can be cited for police misconduct and brought up before the Office of Citizen Complaints.
The Civil Sidewalks Law corrects these deficiencies. It recognizes that sidewalks can, indeed, be obstructed. The proposed law gives police the authority to tell sidewalk squatters to move along, even if no resident is present who has been obstructed.
The underlying problem here is the geography of incivility. That is, packs of migratory addicts and alcoholics roam up and down the West Coast in search of readily available drugs and weak law enforcement. They have created a subculture for themselves that is pro-addiction and hostile to recovery programs.
They colonize public spaces as their turf, for their own exclusive use. Using this turf as their base of operations, they sell drugs, urinate and defecate on the sidewalks, ditch used hypodermic needles in flower boxes and children’s sandboxes, spray-paint graffiti on buildings, cause fires, throw garbage everywhere, turn their dogs on passers-by, and assault residents and each other.
The right of the public to civil and safe sidewalks in SF is an idea whose time has come. It should be supported in the name of progressive politics.