The Board of Supervisors will soon be voting on a proposed “Sit / Lie” ordinance that would make it illegal to sit or lie on any sidewalk in San Francisco. On Saturday morning, a group of about 40 people gathered outside the Toy Boat Cafe at 5th Avenue and Clement in protest.
The Richmond District protest was just one of nearly 100 anti-sit/lie events on Saturday (video), where people spread out on their local sidewalks to prove to officials that citizens who sit or lie on sidewalks are not a hazard to the community or its safety.
Nate Miller, the organizer for the Richmond District event, tells me “Jessie from Toy Boat seemed to enjoy the extra business and so did many people who passed by and asked, “Are we going to be allowed to do this now?”
Ironically, the protesters were seated right where the new parklet will be installed in April. So rest assured you’ll be able enjoy that same corner from a comfy chair in the new parklet. 😉
You can read more about the anti sit/lie law movement at standagainstsitlie.org; here is the flyer they handed out to people who passed by the protest.
Special thanks to Nate Miller from standagainstsitlie.org for the photos. And yes, that is the infamous Frank Chu you see in the first couple of photos. Bonus points if you can crack the code on his sign.
Sarah B.
Haha! I saw the “celebrity guest protester” on the FB feed, and though, “Surely it couldn’t be Frank. What would he be doing all the way out here?”
I think these folks are missing the point about the ordinance and the agressive, lazy, street thugs who it is intended for.
I doubt that law abiding, tax paying, coffee sippers hanging with Frank Chu are the intended targets of this ordinance!
Hi Paul.
There are already laws against being an aggressive thug. I do not like these people much either, and I wish that the police would walk some beats to address the issue.
This law simply states that it shall be illegal to sit or lay down on any inch of the sidewalk in San Francisco from 7am to 11 30 pm. $100 fines for first offense and subsequent offenses as much as 30 days in jail. I think that this is ridiculous. No one should be arrested just for sitting down. If they are committing a crime, go get them… but just because they look different. That is not what the San Francisco that I grew up in is about.
So, when the next big one hits, and all of us are forced out of our homes, we’ll be “breaking” the “law” sitting on the sidewalks/streets away from earthquake damaged structures? How convenient a rouse for them to pick us all up under the guise of a b.s. law and collect $ for bail. What desperate move is next…tax us on the steps we take and install sidewalk tolls. Any excuse to keep reaping the $ we work for. If this is a law designed to clean out the gutter-punks off of Haight ST, then isn’t there already a “no loitering” law for that?
Paul is right – do any of you protesters have a reason to think you’re doing something positive? Or are you being provocative? You seriously think there’s a potential of being arrested, going through the expense of all that, just because you look different? Really?
If you want to make the world a better place, you could be doing something so ordinances like this wouldn’t have to be proposed.
Seriously, have you tried to walk around the Haight? You can’t, in certain places.
Our city leaders and SFPD are trying to make our lives easier and
irresponsible morons lives harder. Why would anyone protest that?
It’s a real stretch to say anyone sitting on a sidewalk for a few moments or after a disaster would be outside the law. Care not cash created an industry and sympathy machine. Keep the benefits coming, allow people to spiral down, in front of your business or in the place we used to call the park (it is now a cash machine for events). All the advocate organizations scream loudly but they are not really interested in truly solving the homeless punk or any other street people problems. They continue to make payroll at our expense by blocking any progress. At some point people just want to be able to walk down the street without poop on it without being hassled. It does not seem as in the gold rush these are folks simply down on their luck needing a hand. The punks on Haight have their hand out and they are biting at your hand in the process. Its easy to demonstrate at Toy boat for “solidarity”. In the picture these folks seem pretty well off. I have never seen any of them at 3am in the Tenderloin trying to help people or working at a community center which have had huge staff cuts. to keep kids of the street. Instead of lying around with a coffee they might try to get involved working on the problems.
Where will all the sidewalk people go next? Guess what Golden Gate Park! Eric Marr needs to participate in a visible way to come up with a solution beyond just saying move along. Today the Haight, tomorrow the Richmond and other neighborhoods.
@Paul : I agree..
The people against this ordinance obviously have no care for protecting local business and keeping neighborhoods safe from aggressive punks and clean from publicly defecating bums who prevent tax paying local residents from enjoying their city and frequenting local businesses free from harassment for “free karma” from pit bull wielding gutter punks. Do these people even go to the Haight or dumps like the Tenderloin? Not likely.. The reality is that the police do not have the legal tools to protect our community from what is a serious growing blight to our community, and with this ordinance they will have the proper ability to handle the situation and help rectify the disintegration of some neighborhoods. The protesters belief that the police will use this ordinance to hassle everyone is absolutely ridiculous, because they have not the time or interest to bother citizens who are following societal norms of not urinating in the street and hassling people when they have plenty of enough actual crime to respond to.
Also have any of these protesters gone to the Transbay Terminal to protest? The smell of urine and feces should give them a reality check.
To address a number of your points:
‘It’s a real stretch to say anyone sitting on a sidewalk for a few moments or after a disaster would be outside the law.’
No, this is not a stretch. The law clearly states that it is against the law to sit on any public sidewalk between 7am and 11 pm. This is what the proposed ordinance says. What we were doing would unquestionably be against the law. It does not say, ‘the police will only enforce it on bad people,’ because laws can not be crafted as such…
‘If you want to make the world a better place, you could be doing something so ordinances like this wouldn’t have to be proposed.’… ‘I have never seen any of them at 3am in the Tenderloin trying to help people or working at a community center which have had huge staff cuts.’
This statement makes an incorrect assumption that the only thing that I, and those opposed to the law have ever done is sit on the sidewalk with our friends. Usually, if I am in the TL at 3am, I am getting out of a bar or at one of my many friends houses who live down there. However, I have worked at 2 community centers that are understaffed and when I was a teenager, used to make burrittos in Mission records every Thursday night and pass them out in the North Mission up to Duboce. What have you been doing?
‘Seriously, have you tried to walk around the Haight? You can’t, in certain places…. Do these people even go to the Haight or dumps like the Tenderloin? Not likely.. ‘
Its funny that some of you make incorrect statements for me, about the people who participated in the action (my group was mainly comprised of SF natives) when I am right here to respond. The fact is that I was born in the Haight, worked at a store in upper Haight for a number of years, went to high school there, tutored homeless kids at DeAvila school and taught science for many years to kids out of an organization in the neighborhood. My girlfriend also just finished working at ChaChaCha for the past 4 years, and we often walked home at night.
I understand that many of you including myself have legitimate concerns about public safety and general well being. I am interested in developing solutions that actually work for our neighborhoods, instead of of making completely normal behaviors illegal for everyone. Many points that you have touched on are issues such as people relieving themselves on the ground. This law would not address this gross behavior, because most people do this activity standing up or squatting, and it is already illegal. However, I agree that this needs to be addressed. In most other countries, even very poor ones, there are facilities to do this, often staffed by a person who ensures that the places are clean and well stocked. Others talk about agressive behavior, such as panhandling or assault, both of which are already illegal, and also often practiced standing up. No one wants to be assaulted, but the logic behind making it illegal for any person to sit, or rest as a solution to violent behavior makes not sense. I understand that you are frustrated, but don’t drink all the snake oil until you evaluate what is being sold to you.
The experience on Saturday was very positive, because it was an opportunity to engage with a diverse group of neighborhood people. One elderly woman brought everyone pudding. Another person asked, ‘are we allowed to do this now?’ Anyone who we talked to seemed to think that the law was ridiculous at face value, even if they share in concerns about public safety and quality of life. Setting up more thinks such as mini parks, widening our sidewalks, putting more benches out on the street, makes for a more urban, engaging and safe environment that everyone can take ownership of. Telling people that they don’t belong on our streets unless they are shopping makes for a bland environment.
If you have any more questions, I will be out in the same place next month. Come by and chat, and maybe I will even have some breakfast for you.
Nate Miller
Sorry, to clarify… I did not see the word ‘disaster.’ While the law currently does not specify disaster, it does make exceptions for medical emergency, and I would expect that disasters would be added/ that they would have better things to do.
If you are interested in hearing a more in depth debate from leaders of proposing sides, check this out on KPFA (starts at 35 Minute Mark): http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/59709
Here is a video of some other activities that happened last Saturday. Not all people represent my points of view, but that is a great part about the diversity of San Francisco: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-O6KeFdtUg&feature=player_embedded
I agree with Paul and Michael. I’m not sure why so many are trying to protect people who would just as soon punch them as anyone else. its not about a “bland environment”. Aggressive behavior does not belong in the new mini park or the widened sidewalk either. Invite the street punks to your next party, they need the food and perhaps could learn from the civility.
Nate, you are a very gracious person who really cares, I can tell that by your postings. However, having worked most of my life in Law Enforcement, I’m going to trust the SFPD to use common sense in enforcing this ordinance. It’s no secret that the police are allowed to use discretion in enforcing ordinances and just because something it technically illegal doesn’t mean your going to be slapped with handcuffs and read your miranda rights. Factors involved in taking enforcement action are call load, severity of the violation, complaint from a citizen vs. an officer just simply observing it, etc.
I think the SFPD have better things to do than to use this ordinance to target and harass innocent folks who have good intentions on our city’s sidewalks.
SFPD will use discretion ?
what are the parameters captain ?
Surely, a middle class white women suffering phypoglycemia who sits on the sidewalk to locate glucose inside of her Guchi purse will not be disquieted by your department/
But having heard in BVHP from “beat cops” “Move the F… on” when addressing youth, what garantee do you give to parents and taxpayers that racially biased policinbg would not be part of “No Sit No Lie” ?
Hello Captain.
The police discretion being relied upon for sit-lie is the reverse of what we normally have. Normally we have a good law that everyone can agree on, and the police do or don’t enforce it depending on their discretion. In this case we have a bad law, and are being told that the police discretion will obviate the bad parts of it. But we as citizens have no guarantee of that.
The police normally will not give you a ticket for speeding, but if they do you have a defense in court if you weren’t speeding. But if you are waiting for the bus and the police give you a ticket for sitting on the sidewalk, what will your defense be? You can’t say “I wasn’t sitting on the sidewalk” because you were in fact doing that, and it’s against the law. You can’t say “George Gascon and Gavin Newsom said on TV it would be OK” because what the police chief and the mayor say to the press _before_ a law is passed becomes irrelevant _after_ the law is passed.
We should always insist on good laws. Even if it appears that everybody is operating in good faith, you don’t want to leave the door open to abuse. I think that a good example is the last time that SF had a sit/lie law in the 70s It was sold as a way to clean up haight ‘from the dirty hippies,’ but it ended up being used in the castro against gay men. 14 men in the castro were jailed (and got their asses kicked) for sitting on the sidewalk, being gay. Harvey milk fought this law aggressively and it was eventually overturned.
I am not trying to bash our police officers, and its nothing personal that I don’t want to give away a basic freedom.
Okay, Nate. You convinced me that this law is needed even more. Thanks!
Aww, look at you guys! You’re so cute – protesting a proposed law aimed at obnoxious street kids in button-down shirts in front of an ice cream store. (OMG!!! Are those golden retriever pups? So adorable!!!1!) Fight the power! You would really be stirring it up in Corte Madera! You guys couldn’t get arrested here if you tried.
Seriously – if any of these protesters had a 8 or 10 tweaked-out/drunk/high street kids and a bunch of pit bulls camped outside of their door getting in your face for money every time you passed by, you might change your tune. Yes – there are existing laws against that behavior but someone must file a complaint before the police can intervene. And when that happens, things don’t get better for those who complain, it gets worse – constant harassment, physical threats, etc. Ask anyone who lives in the Haight how they feel about the proposed law. You will find that most are strongly in favor of it.
My experience with the cops in this town is that they are pretty flexible and don’t hassle you unless you’re really asking for it. Abusive behavior will always get a response. This law is just that. These protesters should drop the red herring arguments and reconsider their high-school civics course stance on this issue.
It is amusing that none of you responded to anything, yet continue to assert that I do not experience similar things to you, which is clearly untrue. If there is no problem with pit bulls and ‘thugs’ in any other neighborhood than the Haight, as you say, then why is it that this law targeting every inch of the sidewalk?
‘Abusive behavior will always get a response. This law is just that.’
– What are you talking about? In the sentence before you just said that abusive behavior is not being addressed. If it will always get a response, then why is non abusive behavior such as peacefully sitting down going to be against the law for anyone.
To reiterate, the beahvior that you describe here: -8 or 10 tweaked-out/drunk/high street kids and a bunch of pit bulls camped outside of their door getting in your face for money every time you passed by- is illegal many times over.
Here is a partial list of laws that already address the behaviors that you are talking about:
* Municipal Police Code Section 21- Drinking in Public
*Penal Code 647 (f)- Public Intoxication
*Municipal Police Code 97 (a) and (b) Camping
* Penal Code 647 (j) – Lodging in a Public or Private Place without Permission of Owner
* Municipal Police Code 153- Urinating in Public
* Municipal Police Code 2(a) 23(a) and Penal Code 647- Obstruction of Streets and Sidewalks
* Municipal Police Code Section 120-2 (d) 1-4 – Agressive Solicitation
* Municipal Code Section 25-26 Tresspassing
* Police Code 372 Maintaining a Public Nuisance
* Penal Code 415 Disturbing the Peace
* 602.1 Penal Code Interfering with a Business
* 643.2 Loitering with Intent to Buy or Sell Drugs
* Other criminal activity against the law: Assault, battery, malicious mischief, theft, robbery, threats, extortion, and public intoxications.
Through your logic, perhaps we should also make a law to ban standing and walking and trust that the police will only enforce it on jerks.
To harp on your point (Max) about the Haight for a minute, I have tons of friends who live and work on Haight. In fact, I am sure that I have way more friends who work and live on Haight than you do, as I spent many years working up there, grew up here and am a pretty social person.
Despite what you say, many people do not support the law who live in the Haight for a number of reasons. Many see a problem, but aren’t drinking up this snake oil as the solution. A google search returned this gem, from a person who appears pretty objective (unlike our suburban pit bull / faxu man on the street at the Chronicle known as Nevius): http://www.sfengage.org/blog/2010/03/30/exploring-haights-response-to-proposed-sit-lie-law/
@Nate
The reason why we disagree is because the ordinances you list are not resolving the issues at hand with the Haight and other areas of the city. Did you read ( http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7304468&rss=rss-kgo-article-7304468 ) which is linked to through your link out that you posted to sfengage? It iterates exactly the problem, that the police need a lengthy formal reporting process from you in your neighborhood to clear the issue..and this is not working. Though the article mentions Santa Cruz having enforced this type of ordinance, I’m aware that Portland, OR has been struggling to pass theirs ( http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/03/portland_mayor_sam_adams_float.html ), at least they are discussing the terms though. Unless you can suggest / support legitimate and effective methods that would serve as an alternative to this ordinance while achieving the same results, I and the other people upset with the condition of the city will continue to vote for this ordinance.. and vote for people who will get these ordinances made to law.
I find it intriguing that no where in the word ‘sidewalk’ do I see anything about sitting or lying being implied..
‘I’m not sure why so many are trying to protect people who would just as soon punch them as anyone else.’
Yes, because we are all in imminent danger of being punched by a person who is sitting or laying on the ground. All street people are trained in Gracie Jiu Jitsu and pose the greatest threat to us when they are in the ancient striking position known as butt on sidewalk.
Nate,
Since you are obviously community minded and care about what our government is doing, I would like to recommend that you or anyone else reading our comments to go on a ride-a-long with SFPD and observe what is actually happening. I would also like to suggest you attend their next citizen police academy. During the academy training, you play the role of an officer during different scenarios such as responding to complaints from frustrated business owners about this very issue. I think if you’re as open minded as you profess, you may see another other points of view rather than trying to convince everyone that you’re right and they’re wrong.
Hi Captain. I would love to ride in the front of a police car. How can I do that? Can you hook me up? E-mail me – natemillerules@gmail.com to let me know how this would be possible. Seriously!
I would also like to suggest to you, that you try to get a reservation for a homeless shelter in San Francisco. It would be an interesting and laborious experience, being sent from place to place, waiting a lot and then being denied. You might even get so tired that you need to sit down for a while.
Anyhow, I am way into riding in a cop car and taking that class. As I said, e-mail me and I will check it out.
Michael-
This article talks about the Mayor seeing someone smoking crack, and a baby that got spat on.
‘but according to police someone has to make a formal complaint before an arrest can be made.’
Doesn’t that make sense? Last time I checked you could be arrested for smoking crack or spitting on a baby. Our jails are most certainly filled with people who were caught smoking crack. And a complaint would be kind of important to have for the prosecution and the defense. Its called evidence, and we usually expect some if we are going to arrest a person. People in this country are innocent until proven guilty… kind of the cornerstone of our system. How would sit/lie stop a person from smoking crack or spitting on a baby? It is not even clear if either of these alleged incidents were done sitting down.
I lived in Santa Cruz for a while when I went to college but it was a real drag there. Mike Rotkin, the mayor, was my thesis advisor. I think that he was a great teacher, but I really don’t agree with his assessment of how the law has turned out. I don’t know what it is like to be homeless in Santa Cruz, but I can tell you that as a young person it was not fun to live there. Any time we assembled, the police were there to move us along. This was much different than San Francisco, and I am not sure if it was due to a sit lie law, or just to a heavier handed police force.
In terms of solutions, I think that there are many better ones than this, although that kind of depends on how well you believe this will work.
A few follow:
First- Recognize what the planning commission said yesterday, that sidewalks are for much more than just walking.
‘ Wide, generous sidewalk areas provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and
pedestrian amenities.
A. Portions of wide sidewalks can be turned into children?s play areas, and sitting areas for
adults.
B. In intensive shopping areas, wide sidewalks allow free pedestrian movement, and
provide room for benches for resting and shelters for transit patrons. ‘
Programs such as pavement to parks and widening of certain sidewalks does a lot to increase community ownership of a street, instead of ‘colonization by one group.’ If you go to almost any other country, you will see many people sitting and lying in public spaces. I was just in Vietnam and Cambodia and it was incredible, how people live their lives in the public realm. In other places in the world you will find many more people out in public, and although there will still be some drunks and panhandlers, you feel pretty safe because of the high density of people. It is also a lot more interesting.
Second- Cops should walk beats. The district 5 supervisors has been trying to push for this in his neighborhood and the police do not want to get out of their cars. Currently, there are 2 bike officers assigned to Haight street and golden gate park. Having them walk down the street, get to know merchants and neighbors and identify who the people causing problems are would solve a lot.
Third- Restorative Justice. I linked it above; check it out- starts @ 35 minutes: http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/59709
These solutions may not seem like the best for you, but sit/lie is ridiculous.
Its at 24 comments, seems like all the defending could be used to better outcomes. Take the comment energy and focus it towards crafting legislation that works for the most possible. It is after all the Richmond Blog not the Haight blog. We have other closer issues like the Alexandria and Louis’. A valuable pie resource may be slipping away!
I love Louis’, but don’t see how this isn’t a Richmond issue, as this is a citywide ordinance. It seems that a lot of people took interest in this conversation, and I look forwards to continuing it in public out in the Richmond. Check out the debate around sit lie that aired yesterday on bbc:
http://www.standagainstsitlie.org/2010/04/04/we-debated-sitlie-on-bbc-world-service-today-listen-to-see-who-wins/
For anyone interested, go to SFPD’s website and click on Community Police Academy to get more information on attending. You can call the Richmond Station to inquire about a ride along. Please continue to support the SFPD.