San Francisco Considers Criminalizing Homelessness With Sit-Lie Ordinance

San Francisco — arguably the most progressive city in the country — is poised to follow its vote to ban same-sex marriage with another vote for more discrimination. This time the target is the homeless.

On November 2nd, residents of San Francisco will go to the polls to vote on the Sit-Lie Ordinance (Proposition L). If passed, it will be illegal to sit or lie on a city sidewalk between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. (It should be noted that there is also Proposition M (pdf) on the same ballot, a "poison pill" that deals with police foot patrols, that could negate Proposition L.)

The law is proposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has shown little sympathy for homeless individuals with past policies. This is not his first ordinance that unfairly targets those living on the streets. He has passed legislation barring aggressive panhandling and developed the controversial program Care Not Cash, which encourages handing out service information to the homeless instead of money. Tell Mayor Gavin Newsom to pull his support for the Sit-Lie Ordinance!

He has already felt resistance to his newly proposed ordinance, stating: "I don't think there's anyone with more scars from these types of battles than me. At what point is there accountability for the words? If you consistently show up and say 'the sky is going to fall in' every time there is a new initiative, at what point do people stop listening?"

Supporters of the ordinance assert that these laws will help clear the streets for patrons and families to easily pass by. Civil Sidewalks is a "grassroots group of families, residents and small merchants who believe that sidewalks should be a safe place for our children, elderly and disabled." They state that in recent years, San Francisco sidewalks have become increasingly violent. They assert that this is not an issue of homelessness, yet they state that those who are the most "intolerant" of passersby are those who "encamp" on the sidewalks. Merely changing a word does not make their cause sympathetic to homeless individuals.

To make their argument even less plausible, on Civil Sidewalks' FAQ page, there is this "explanation": "Where are people to go if SFPD informs them that it is unlawful to lie on the sidewalk? Where they like. People may stand. They may go to benches, libraries, the beach, over 260 parks, common areas open to the public and plazas."

This is incredibly insensitive to homeless individuals. Many people are homeless because they have very few resources and support. This is why they are on the streets in the first place — it may be their only option. Perhaps providing more affordable housing, supportive housing and services to assist these individuals would make for a better piece of legislation. To flippantly say "go where you like" is offensive and misses the point. If it were that easy, this "problem" would not exist in the first place. (For a good laugh, check out the spoof Civil Sidewalks page to see that we're not alone.)

Homeless advocates believe this law is another means of criminalizing of the homeless. San Francisco's elected public defender, Jeff Adachi, wants the city to reject the ordinance. He believes that its enforcement may be anything but consistent and fair. "The problem with the proposed law is it gives the police too much discretion to decide who should and shouldn't be prosecuted," Adachi said recently. It's easy to imagine a scenario where someone who "looks homeless" is forced to move along while people who "look housed" are allowed to stay and rest.

One San Francisco business owner, Praveen Madan, wrote a compelling blog post criticizing the ordinance. He speaks of pressure from other citizens and merchants who blindly support the law without much thought or research. Doing his own research, he found the ordinance to be flawed and unfairly targeted at homeless individuals.

What is really going on here? This is about the fact that people do not want to see or be around homeless individuals, even in a seemingly accepting city like San Francisco. This is yet one more case of NIMBYism. The real question is why are there thousands of street homeless people in one of the wealthiest and most progressive cities in the world?

Photo credit: Rich Lombino