If You’re Going to San Francisco, Be Sure to Never Sit on the Sidewalk
Standing room only on Haight Street. Credit: johndoeforty1 via flickr
Last Tuesday in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom introduced legislation to the Board of Supervisors to create a sit/lie ordinance for the city, making it illegal for people to sit or lie down on the sidewalk. Newsom introduced two versions of the ordinance: one that would make it illegal city-wide, and another that would only make it illegal along certain commercial corridors, like 24th Street in Noe Valley, or the Haight Street in Haight-Ashbury, where the impetus for the creation of the law originated. The Haight Ashbury Improvement Association*, an group of merchants in the Upper Haight, have been pushing for City Hall and SFPD to do something about what they consider to be a serious impediment to business: Haight Street “gutter punks.” Not only that, but Mayor Newsom recently moved to the Upper Haight from the ritzier Pacific Heights neighborhood of the city. He just so happened to go for a walk on Haight street, saw someone smoking crack, and became convinced of the necessity of the city-wide ordinance.
As a native San Franciscan, I can’t help but be amazed at the irony that the mayor who won his first election with compassion for the homeless as his trademark issue would introduce the most draconian piece of legislation San Francisco has seen yet, in the neighborhood that spawned the Summer of Love. On the other hand, I know just how annoying these “gutter punks” who populate Haight Street can be, and that they aren’t exactly the flower children who made the neighborhood so famous. What upsets me is not that Newsom’s law will take away Haight-Ashbury’s hippie vibe—despite all the head shops, that vibe has been gone for some time—but that the Haight Street gutter punk story is a way for the city to gather support for an otherwise oppressive, and possibly unconstitutional, law.
No one in San Francisco will tell you that gutter punks aren’t obnoxious. Probably not even the gutter punks. A lot of the general distaste for them stems not only from their aggressive panhandling techniques, but the fact that they are perceived to be homeless “by choice”; that they bought in to being homeless through punk culture, and not the other way around.
Though San Francisco is known for its liberal politics, and its tolerance and compassion for the homeless, Haight Street gutter punks have done everything in their power to be left out of this equation, and the rest of San Francisco’s homeless might have to pay the price, should the sit/lie law go into effect. Naturally, homeless advocacy groups are upset, but I think this sort of policy should concern all San Franciscans, and it probably would if City Hall and the local media didn’t center the conversation only around Haight Street gutter punks.
One of the things that most people love about San Francisco, and what sets it apart from every other city in California, is its vibrant—and sometimes bizarre—streetscape. The sit/lie law, in my opinion is a direct threat to that. C.W. Nevius, who favors the ordinance, mocked these concerns in his most recent column for the Chronicle, whose editorial board has recently come out in favor of the law. “What about the sea lions at Fisherman’s Wharf,” writes Nevius, “All they do is sit and lie. And they’re belligerent, too. I say lock ‘em up.” Clever observation, but they’re not on the sidewalk, C.W. They’re in the water, and as long as they stay there, the sea lions will be safe from the long arm of the law. But guess what famous Pier 39 fixture isn’t? By my interpretation of the law, the World Famous Bushman could definitely get arrested for scaring tourists in his playful fashion. So could one of those robot-alien-people, though that wouldn’t be such a big loss.
So much of San Francisco’s culture is based on this eccentricity, this freedom to do what you want, be who you are, et cetera. In San Francisco you don’t get the feeling that the city is merely a place to do business. It’s also a place for people to live, and for many it’s a refuge. I challenge anyone to catch that feeling in Midtown Manhattan.
Furthermore, SFPD doesn’t need a sit/lie ordinance to harass gutter punks on Haight Street; they’ll go ahead and do it anyway. They probably ought to. But a city-wide law that makes it illegal to sit or lie on the street anywhere in San Francisco strikes me as a real threat to any sort of city life other than that which makes the wheels of commerce turn smoother.
Back in the 1970’s, when San Francisco’s skyline was springing up with lots of new skyscrapers, residents complained about “Manhattanization”. They feared San Francisco was losing its character and its gorgeous vistas to all the new development. The two are inextricably linked, after all. I’d argue that this sit/lie ordinance is yet another round of Manhattanization in San Francisco. The sit/lie law is similar in nature to most of Mayor Giuliani’s “broken window” policing tactics that he used in the early 90’s to “clean up” New York. But even Guiliani didn’t need to make new laws; he just made his cops enforce laws already on the books. And, further, the public support for this form of policing came from residents of a crime-ridden city that people felt was on the verge of self-destruction, not from residents of a prosperous city with incredibly low crime rates who get annoyed when a person probably undeserving of charity demands money or cigarettes from them on a certain street in a certain neighborhood. San Francisco doesn’t need the sit/lie laws like New York needed Giuliani’s tactics. If the Board of Supervisors passes this law, San Franciscans might lose something they never knew they loved so much. Just ask a New Yorker.
*The Merchant Chair of the Association is Kent Uyehara, owner of FTC Skateshop on Haight. Ironically, FTC is understood by most younger skateboarders to stand for “F—- The Cops.”
Willy Staley is an Urban Leaders Fellow, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. He writes the Urban Nation column for Next American City, which will cover and comment on federal urban policy throughout 2010. Contact him at willy@americancity.org
With Homeless Prevention Program Expiring, Homeless Rates Remain Ominous
How Much Should Governments Spend on IT?
Soil Kitchen: An Invitation to a Greener Future
An Interview with Alex Lehnerer
Urban Reason on Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 3:48pm
This is most definitely not the solution to the problem of the bums and junkies that pollute the sidewalks of certain neighborhoods. Take away the right to stop into a market and to sit and enjoy a sandwich on the sidewalk? To have a have a conversation with friends or neighbors on the curb in-front of your apartment? Taking away the freedoms of average citizens is really a cowardly way to attack the homeless.
Chloe in San Francisco, CA on Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 8:29pm
You cited the lease relevant (and firmly tongue-in-cheek) part of the Nevius article, and seemingly took nothing away from the rest of it. But essentially, this is a TOOL that enables police to ask belligerent kids harrassing people to quit a premisis. It is NOT going to be blanket-enforced, and in these types of laws, enforcement is key. As Mr. Nevius mentions, cops are not going to waste their time haranguing tourists sitting having a sandwich or peaceful, calm homeless people. Of course not. This is simply a legal mechanism to allow them to address a horde of awful out-of-town kids on what is also my native city—and neighborhood.
The original, excellent article: “Sit/Lie Law won’t trip up tourists” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/04/BAO61CABF1.DTL
Chloe on Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 8:31pm
least* relevant, that is.
Maria in SF on Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 9:53pm
Has the author actually been to Haight St (or the Castro) lately? Its utterly wild. Every block, tangles of really belligerent people with pit bulls, intimidating passersby to give them money, and threatening you if you ignore them. Calling you every nasty word they can think of. In any other place, they would be jailed immediately. Its mind-boggling to me that people have this knee jerk response of condemning the simple idea of enforcing basic law, instead of condemning the idiotic behavior of these drippy creeps.
Joe in SF on Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:13pm
Have to agree with the other comments here, the sit-lie law will take nothing away from SF’s character. Let’s be clear here: Berkeley has the same sit-lie ordinance for their version of Haight (Telegraph), and Telegraph’s character is alive and well.
Given that you hardly see cops in SF anyway, what are the chances that a cop is going to stop and ticket you for enjoying a sandwich? Let’s be serious here, and maintain some sense of common sense. This law is to address a citywide quality-of-life issue, and I haven’t yet met a single San Franciscan that doesn’t mind laws promoting safety within a reasonable window of tolerance.
Unsure of the article, it’s author, or this website, but thought enough of it to make sure the residents, property owners, and tax paying citizens of SF are accounted for.
Willy Staley on Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:36pm
Chloe - I understand that a law-abiding citizen won’t actually get arrested for sitting down just anywhere in the City. The headline is a reference to a well-known 60’s song. Aside from that I did not suggest that everyday ordinary folk are going to get arrested by a gestapo-like SFPD. What I am trying to say - and I must not have articulated this well enough - is that the law is city-wide, but the narrative that the media, in conjunction with City Hall, is presenting revolves entirely around the Haight Street gutter punks, who everyone hates and would love to see dealt with appropriately. So, it seems that a city-wide ordinance could be overkill, and when taken far short of its logical extreme - that bored SF cops can now kick anyone out of anywhere they want to - it still presents a threat to San Francisco’s carefree and vibrant street culture. I understood all of C.W. Nevius’ columns just fine, but I don’t think that just because the proponents of the law say that it won’t be enforced all over, that should be taken at face value.
Maria - I have been to both recently, December to be exact, and that wasn’t my experience. Again, if you have ever actually been threatened by someone like that, you can feel free to call the cops and they would be locked up immediately, under the current laws. I don’t see the need for a city-wide ordinance that’s so draconian. Also, as I pointed out, why didn’t the SFPD just have an internal directive to deal with these gutter punks appropriately? No one would get upset. I’m not some nutcase libertarian; I sincerely think the law is dangerous.
Joe - I’m glad you’re so proud of SF’s finest. Aren’t they the same force that beat up a guy for having fajitas on Union Street? The same guys who made a racist, sexist intro-to-the-squad video? Now sure, they wouldn’t arrest you for having a sandwich - fajitas, yes - but it will give them a lot more power to mess with those who exist somewhere on the tolerability spectrum between Everyday Dude Eating a Sandwich and Haight Street Gutter Punk with Pitbull Yelling at Passersby. That is where I see a problem with the law.
Joe Fresh in San Francisco on Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:30am
I think the sit/lie law is well overdue. Anyone who is opposed to this has not walked around the city of SF in a while. And I’m not JUST talking about the Haight, or the TL, I’m talking about Downtown, the Fillmore and even parts of Powell Street and the The Marina. This law is meant to target aggressive panhandlers and junkies who take everything from the city and give nothing in return. Regarding Willy Staley’s comments, I don’t see it panning out that way, and YES I am proud of our police force here in the city. Have they made mistakes in the past, sure what police force in a major metropolitan area hasn’t.
My wife and I work really hard to live in this city because we love being here, but its frustrating to walk to work and have to step over some derelict that is asking you for money. And when you say no, the verbal tirade is more than enough to make you wish the law was in effect already. I flat out disagree with the claim that this law will criminalize homelessness, its going to criminalize the things that should be illegal to begin with; aggressive begging, loitering.
And by the way, I don’t think any tourist or a local will be found eating a sandwich on a curb any time soon. The chance of enjoying your sandwich while sitting next to a puddle of urine or feces is so high due to our accepting of every down and out homeless person is, in my opinion, out of control. I know San Francisco has a history of accepting everyone and everything, but I think there has to be a reasonable limit to this. The key word being REASONABLE. For the citizens of this city to pay the taxes that we do and then be asked to endure the b*llsh*t of aggressive wacked out junkies is not reasonable.
Elise D-B in NY/SF on Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:13am
One shouldn’t judge a law by whether one can assume it will only target those one finds disagreeable, one should judge it by whether it’s constitutional and just. Feeling that way about law is important because 1) it demonstrates respect for what laws are, and 2) because who is deemed disagreeable is both subjective and subject to change. What this law means for the nature of public space in San Francisco is profoundly disturbing, and I’m quite literally sickened by what seems to be the zeitgeist of (can I call you fucking google-brainwashed transplants?) the New San Francisco. I FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THIS.
Staxwell on Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:07pm
I grew up in SF and visited Haight Street shortly after the increase in enforcement against gutter punks in the area. There was already a marked improvement in the atmosphere. I haven’t heard any arguments to convince me why continued enforcement of existing laws would be insufficient to deal with the obvious jackassery of homeless-by-choice “thugs,” or whatever you want to call them. Manipulation of SF’s tolerant and charitable attitude with respect to the homeless (for example via the dog thing), and especially harassment, should indeed be energetically policed. Willy clearly argued that in his article. The question is whether the new law is needed, and as Elise pointed out, whether it represents a fair and just set of limitations on the ways San Franciscans use public spaces. People can say that it will only be used against obvious criminals, but the law turns a whole lot of people into criminals. Including the Bushman.
On the other hand I would still characterize the SFPD as a fairly “chill” police force. In my experience, they have been much more relaxed about enforcement of minor laws (read: drinking in public) than, say, the NYPD. And don’t get me started on undercover cops in Budapest…
David on Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:46pm
“Incredibly low crime rate”?
San Francisco has dramatically higher crime rates than New York.
See http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=san+francisco&s1=CA&c2=new+york&s2=NY
From the 2006 FBI crime statistics:
Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
SF/NY/National
Murder: 11.5/7.3/ 7
Forcible Rape: 20.64/13.12/32.2
Robbery: 517.1/287.9/205.8
Aggravated Assault: 326.4/329.6/336.5
Burglary: 866.5/271.1/813.2
Larceny Theft: 3202.2/1412.9/2601.7
Vehicle Theft: 889.4/195.2/501.5
Willy Staley on Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:30pm
David - I was referring to New York City’s crime rates circa 1990, not 2006. In my experience, San Francisco’s crime is focused in very small pockets, and Haight Street is not one of them. You would still miss my point if you focused only on the crime stats.
redseca2 on Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:28pm
I have lived mid-block on Ashbury just above Haight Street since 1979.
The neighborhood in that time has certainly evolved, but has always been a mecca for the footloose, the homeless, the semi- and yes, faux-homeless and a continual reminder of the truth of line that “if america was a dining table and you lifted up one end, everything loose would end up in San Francisco”.
During my time here, the Haight’s bark has always been far louder than its’ bite, and we have never been the victims of any sort of crime. There have been several periods when you wanted to be more on your toes than normal, including the first wave of crack cocaine in the ‘80’s and some nasty right wing skinheads in the early ‘90’s.
But this new gutter punk invasion is a worse than those previous unpleasantries. First, this is going on in broad daylight on crowded streets rather than after dark. This is not like being followed on a dark street but rather not being allowed to leave a market with your groceries in the middle of the day. It is not one on one, but twenty to one. I said previously that we had never been victims of crime in the Haight, but my housemate (since 1993) was spat on, right in the face, by one of the gutter punks without a word being exchanged. Also, there have been many incidents where you are made to inderstand “we know where you live” and that gets to the core of the problem here and the reason for a sit/lie law. Without something like the sit/lie law the police can only “request” someone to move. Beyond that, you need someone to make a formal complaint with names, and addresses becoming part of the public record.
The sit/lie law would allow the police to choose to enforce the law at their discretion without witnesses statements, akin to a no jaywalking law. We all have reasons to not want to give the police too much discretionary power, but in this case I believe they would apply it wisely and only where it is needed.
Chloe in San Francisco, CA on Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:06pm
Elise, I feel pretty confident that if you took a poll of ACTUAL native-born San Franciscans, of which I am one (in additional to a passionate progressive), you will find them to be largely in favor of sit/lie.
In light of that, what *I* feel really irritated/disturbed by are those people who come to San Francisco with a pre-conceived, rose-colored glasses notion of what the city SHOULD be, with no respect for what it IS in reality—a big city with big problems that needs practical solutions.
Google transplants are irritating, but these gutterpunk transplants have made my neighborhood borderline unliveable.
clak in sf / phila on Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:06am
“Elise, I feel pretty confident that if you took a poll of ACTUAL native-born San Franciscans, of which I am one (in additional to a passionate progressive), you will find them to be largely in favor of sit/lie.”
Chloe I completely disagree. Apparently we know different people.
Reading comments describing how “annoying” and “unjust” it is to be hassled by homeless, from native san franciscans and transplants alike, totally revolts me. How is it that anybody, no matter how absurdly high their rent is (I’m sorry), can justify feeling unfairly bothered by homeless enough times to support such a sweeping ordinance? I mean, how many times, really, have you been aggressively bothered by panhandlers? Once, twice, five times? If it’s anything more than that, I’m sorry (again), but you are an easy target and people will probably try to punk you wherever you go, forever. And to those describing being spat on, etc, that is assault and there are already laws in place against that. The same goes for threats about “where you live.”
Looking to the future, if this law goes into effect, I imagine these “problem homeless” (a phrase already so, for lack of a better word, problematic, because of how subjective it is) will go from the sidewalk to the park (especially at Haight), where there is no commerce to interrupt. But then Joe Google and Susie Native will want new ordinances limiting congregation during park hours because all of a sudden they are much more crowded than before. Then what? And if the limited version of this bill passes, no doubt there will be some sector unjustly left out, prompting added legislation to include other sectors of the city? This really feels like the first bad mistake of many, if it is allowed to pass.
Shawn Allen in San Francisco on Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:05pm
Willy, this is spot-on. SFPD doesn’t need any more “tools” at their disposal to ticket or arrest gutter punks. They should be enforcing laws already on the books intended to protect us from harassment and violence. What if these kids keep hanging out but just stop sitting or lying on the sidewalk? Will we amend the law to prohibit standing in one place for extended periods of time (also known as “loitering”)?
City officials need to be held accountable for the failures of the agencies they oversee rather than conjuring up new laws. There are plenty of more important issues for the Mayor and the Board to address than this one. Tell the SFPD to suck it up and do their job.
Michael Isla in 3104839258 on Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 11:42pm
If the city of San Francisco Can not provide public benches in commuted areas then sitting in the sidewalk should not be fine. The side walks are not “tread master” leave it the GYM. These are our cities, then let the local residents built the benches with city funding.