S.F. Government to Consider Dumb Sit/Lie Ordinance Today

Today's the day that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, normally an ally for the disadvantaged, introduces two ordinances to ban sitting on public sidewalks. He was formerly lukewarm on calls to ban sidewalk sitting; his conversion smacks of political opportunism. Newsom says the proposed regulations don't target the homeless, but we all know that these types of laws, from Boulder to Salt Lake City, are enforced more strongly against people with no place to go.

Newsom says that in response to complaints from residents, he wants to make the city safer. We can all agree that people should feel safe in their neighborhoods. But why not just arrest people who actually commit crimes like assault and harassment? It's hard to believe that existing laws are insufficient for real crimes. What's more, the kind of "safety" many are talking about is the kind that mean protecting your eyes from a person who detracts aesthetically from the neighborhood. It's not worth sterilizing a city known for its welcoming, lively population. Part of living in a society is accepting all the law-abiding citizens, no matter how obnoxious, intimidating or dirty.

Newsom has two proposals. The first, which has been upheld on constitutional grounds in other cities in the past, would ban sitting in 20 commercial districts throughout the city. (Business owners have been talking about installing video cameras lately to take matters into their own hands.) The second proposal, which is not thought to have been tested before, would ban sitting or lying on any sidewalk in San Francisco at all times. It's unclear which way the 11-member Board of Supervisors is leaning, though it's known that police chief George Gascón is in favor and public defender Jeff Adachi opposes an ordinance. The Board meets today at 2 p.m. PST. Urge them not to pass the discriminatory sit/lie ordinance.

In a hearing yesterday reported on by the San Francisco Chronicle, Adachi pointed out that a tourist sitting on her luggage and a little boy relaxing with his skateboard would technically be breaking the law if the ordinance passes. Proponents of the measure concede that it would not be enforced equally against everyone. If you admit that your ordinance is discriminatory from the start, maybe that's a clue that it shouldn't get passed.

The proposal to forbid sitting from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. reportedly includes stipulations that a first-time offender gets a warning, then a $50-$100 fine. Second violations would earn a fine of $300-$500, 10 days in jail or both. Try sitting after that and you'll spend a month in jail.

The city's sudden rabidness for a regulation strikes me as a variation of the NIMBY, or, not in my backyard, philosophy. Only now it's NIMCD, not in my commercial district. Newsom had previously been noncommittal on a sit/lie ordinance, but he said recently that while taking a walk with his infant daughter, he saw a man sitting on the sidewalk smoking crack. That would make a lot of people consider the need for more drug treatment centers, but the mayor of San Francisco, apparently, just wanted that guy out of sight. Soon after, Newsom announced that he would personally introduce an ordinance.

Humorously, today is also the day that, just a few hundred yards away somewhere in City Hall, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is hosting a town hall meeting to gather citizens' input on the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness it is required to present to the President and Congress by May 20. A suggestion: start with "don't outlaw sitting."

Photo credit: Incase Designs