How they're sitting - Page 6

44TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: The kids on Haight Street aren't exactly like the stereotype you've been told about

|
(182)
Haight Street travelers Smiley and Half Peach "spange" for drugs -- anti-nausea medicine for their carsick dog
PHOTO BY LUKE THOMAS/FOGCITYJOURNAL.COM

Of course, these kids aren't sleeping in the public parks of Cuzco — but in countries with plenty of cheap travelers' hostels, you don't have to. And though international flights cost more than the van rides and freight train hops that brought in most of the Haight Street kids, backpackers abroad do the same things: take fewer showers and flaunt social norms — not because they want to cause a problem for the natives of the lands they pass through, but because they are young, and discovering themselves for the first time, and can't see much past that. Piss isn't being violent, but he has lost the language to deal with "normies" and he's seen as unpredictable to the not-traveling, not-disenfranchised around him. Which to those who see public space as a place that should be predictable, mean he's a threat.

The clash between the settled and transient in the Haight is not new. Indeed, it's what made the neighborhood famous. As far back as the mid-1960s, officials have been simultaneously fighting and publicizing the Haight's worldwide reputation as a traveler's meeting place, a place with a culture of loosened societal moorings and enlightenment through free love, drugs, and art.

Businesses claim that the omnipresent homeless drive away paying customers from Haight Street. It a curious claim in an area where the vagrant hippie culture made the place the tourist attraction it is today, and one that is belied by the entry of Whole Foods, which plans to open a branch this year at a lot at Haight and Stanyan vacant since 2006. When contrasted with the Tenderloin — another neighborhood with a visible street community — and its chronic problems attracting a grocery store, the Haight street kids' effect on local commerce doesn't seem to be all that grave.

They certainly aren't making the place any less desirable of a neighborhood to live in for the wealthy. Real estate website Trulia.com puts the median listing price for homes in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood at $962,264.

The Haight Street kids I spoke could all too easily see what sit-lie would mean for San Francisco. When you control public space, you control who is in public space — and they have no illusions about whether or not they're included in the perfect world of those who push the measure. If it's enacted, the subculture that made Haight famous — part of which still survives today in a different form — would be gone, leaving it sterile and safe for the head shops and clothing boutiques, an even less authentic version of the '60s love fest their patrons come to the street for. One wonders if a scrubbed-clean Haight is even what the residents and business owners who have thrown their lot behind sit-lie truly want, or if they've been duped into sit-lie's efficacy by the same forces that on a national level have convinced us that curtailing civil liberties will lead to freedom for the real Americans. It comes down to this: What do we want Haight Street to be? Do we want to capitalize and benefit from the accepting, messy, wildly creative legacy the 20th century endowed our streets, or do we want a clean, friendly, outdoor mall? The powers of homogenization and gentrification can demonize the little heathens on Haight Street all they want, but they've miscalculated if they think that they don't belong in San Francisco — after all, Haight created them, not the other way around.

Comments

What an unbearably smug, pretentious and at the same time incredibly vapid article. How you managed all three is beyond me but I must admit it takes a certain talent to go on as long as you did without saying anything of substance.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Oct. 19, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

LOL. Unbearably smug, pretentious and at the same time incredibly vapid describes your comment. You said all of that without saying anything of substance like usual.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2010 @ 8:44 pm

i feel you. i like that the writer did some participatory observing, but what about the homeless in the TL...in the mission. who's writing an article on those communities..communities that have been oppressed since the slave ship ya'lll come onnn! and the end of this article... talking about "capitalizing" on this street kid culture....wha???

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 10:21 am

Thank you very much for the very interesting article and for writing about your first-hand experience. I guess most voters got the "Vote YES on Prop L" flier that I got today. It says that "Sidewalks are meant for pedestrians, Let's keep it that way." Then on the back it asks "Had enough of this?" with some odd camera angles of people sitting on the sidewalk, no faces shown, just the back of the person. Then I looked to see who's funding the flier and it's once again the "Coalition for Sensible Government with major funding by the San Francisco Association of REALTORS." (They have the word "REALTORS" in all caps.) This flier is also on thick card stock (not recycled paper). A complete waste of paper and this went to every voter in the City I would assume. Unfortunately, the No on Prop L group probably does not have the funding to do an opposition flier. But if they do, hopefully that flier will be on recycled paper.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 19, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

You must like walking on dog shit every morning and explaining to your kids that those people on the side of the street are lazy drug abusers. This city is bleeding becuase of people like you and this article.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 8:35 am

Thank you so much for taking the time to really talk with and get to know some of these young people who, as a group, have been so demonized and have been the subject of so much fear mongering over the past few months.

This is an extraordinary piece of journalism. Your comments in the conclusion are very insightful. Every voter in San Francisco should read this article.

Posted by Andy Blue on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 1:15 am
heh

I ask street kid after street kid why they've chosen this lifestyle. Many wouldn't have it any other way. "Why do people want us off the street?" says Oz, a 21 year old from upstate New York who deals alongside Steven. "Probably because they can't do this themselves."

----

I suppose being an SF progressive might lead you to not notice that dude came all the way across the country to be a bum and low level drug dealer? And that at this point is tiresome, and is probably getting old for the people who try and run a businesses and live around there.

The whole class thing in the article is also odd, the people in the Haight have self selected their class, meaning the business owners, the people that live there and the bums. The tone of the article is that the self selected bums are entitled to do anything they want, "judgment is so uncool man," while the other two groups involved are just horrible for wanting to be free of the termites.

The tone is that because they have chosen the bong culture path they get to do whatever they want.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 5:45 am

"I'm opposed to the law "
Posted by glen matlock on Apr. 07, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/04/05/momentum-shifts-against-sit-lie

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 8:14 am

Guest, I think you nailed it about matlock.

I've pretty much stopped responding to his posts at this point. There isn't really a coherent philosophy in his writing, except for a disdain for progressives, no matter what they support. Honestly, though, I wouldn't be surprised if he posted on a conservative blog attempting to get a rise out of people there too.

BTW... good article, Caitlin. Thanks for giving these kids a voice.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 8:34 am

Just wondering here, you like me are for gay rights, but you also seem to think it is OK to tell people what they can order at McDonalds and for attempting to ban what law abiding citizens can own.

I am for the government leaving people alone and if asked you would agree on that simple philosophy, until you want to tell someone else how to live. So who lacks coherence? Post modernism is not coherence dear Greg.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 10:45 am

Could you show me where I said those things?

Posted by Greg on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

" I guess I just care more about people than corporations

I haven't thought too deeply about the implications of limiting a corporation's right to peddle poison and trinkets. On the one hand, I guess you could couch it as a free speech issue... of sorts. On the other hand, there should be limits on corporate "freedom" that don't necessarily apply to people. I don't really care that much where corporations can peddle their junk -not sure if I agree with these particular limits or not, but either way it's not a big deal to me.

What is a big deal is civil liberties for people. The right of people to be secure from being profiled, searched, harrassed, and arrested at the whim of the police, is certainly more important than the question of whether or not corporations have sufficient venues to peddle their garbage.

* reply

Posted by Greg on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 10:33 pm"

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 8:54 pm

Thank you for reposting it. Agree or disagree, anyone can plainly see that what I wrote is not at all the same as your characterization of my argument.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

greg about me

"There isn't really a coherent philosophy in his writing, except for a disdain for progressives,"

me about greg

"you also seem to think it is OK to tell people what they can order at McDonalds"

greg says

"Could you show me where I said those things? "

I quote below where greg says he doesn't care that the state (in the larger term of government) can tell you what to order.

"haven't thought too deeply about the implications of limiting a corporation's right to peddle poison and trinkets. On the one hand, I guess you could couch it as a free speech issue... of sorts. On the other hand, there should be limits on corporate "freedom" that don't necessarily apply to people. I don't really care that much where corporations can peddle their junk -not sure if I agree with these particular limits or not, but either way it's not a big deal to me."

he responds with

" Thank you for reposting it. Agree or disagree, anyone can plainly see that what I wrote is not at all the same as your characterization of my argument."

greg thinks it is no "big deal" for the government to tell people what to eat, but complains when the government tells us where to spend our time?

Like a typical so called progressive, greg gets to tell us all how to live but whines when the favor is returned.

Sit/lie is a bad idea, but when you are children are trying to tell us how to live everywhere else, why should anyone but another true believer like greg give a fuck?

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 11:37 pm

Thanks for asking me to clarify.

Enforce laws already on the books. Don't just make it an idiotic slogan from clowns like Campos and Mirkirimi, clowns that you so called progressives use to dodge this stuff away.

The law is a bad idea, but the answer for the so called progressives like you is to just hope this all goes away so you can get back to telling people how to live, and passing resolutions on Israel.

Being opposed to sit lie doesn't mean that like you that I am in favor of letting human garbage have the run of the city.

It is interesting how the social contract only runs one way with the enlightened progressives.

Thank you for asking guest.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 10:22 am

Thanks for your comment. Oz definitely did come across the country, and he definitely did become a drug dealer.

But we all knew that. The reason why I wrote the article was to highlight that he traveled here for a culture on Haight Street, so while some people may see a "bum" (or a "termite" as you unfortunately state), some people see a nomadic lifestyle that says fuck you to all the things we wish we could say fuck you to everyday. Sometimes, I think it's our response to them that makes these kids "bums."

Self-selecting class... does living in the park or supporting sit-lie instantly change one's class? That might be another article.

The only bongs I saw were the ones sold all over Haight's head shops and hippie tchotchkerias -- and the street kids weren't the ones buying.

Posted by caitlin on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 7:37 am

"The kids on Haight Street aren't exactly like the stereotype you've been told about"

Maybe I'm better informed on the stereotype, but that article is exactly like the stereotype that I am familiar with.

One stereotype I think many people are not familiar with is the middle class punk rocker bragging about their shitty home life, then going back for a shower and some food and to say hey to the parents. Not to say that some don't have real issues in that area, but the actual % is pretty low.

He is welcome to his life choices, but its odd that with some his choices are somehow an entitlement. The culture that you can go to another city and be a pain in the ass, and it's OK? You can cross the country to complain that people are sick of your behavior when you set up your petty drug trade? Yes, we are all jealous of that freedom.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 10:41 am

I lived in the Haight for a year in 1990. It sucked. There actually was a lot of violence amongst the youth. Those golden-eyed ones selling a little weed on the side will knock you upside the head and take your wallet from time to time. True Story. I don't support Sit/Lie, because it's pretty much fascist, and the only reason anyone cares is because it's hard to shop for hookahs and surf boards on Haight with a neverending chorus of requests for money and smokes and smiles buzzing in your ears. But in no way do I think those gutterpunks are contributing to the creativity of the city.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 9:22 am
+1

+1

Posted by +1 on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 9:24 am
+1

+1

Posted by +1 on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 9:28 am

i know Oz,,he did not come here to be a drug dealer,, he came because of the promise of a better life. This promise was broken by the ones he THOUGHT he could count on, his family.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 10:50 am

Oz and Steven were the aliases the two kids described in the story requested, unless you can tell who he is by the other distinguishing characteristics. I definitely don't think "Oz"'s reason to come to SF was to be a drug dealer, though -- sorry if that's what came across in my comment.

Posted by caitlin on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

A thoughtful article, with one glaring omission; no mention of the fact that the people in question are made up almost entirely of white kids (no exaggeration, about 9 out of 10 on any given day).

Is it sacrilege to accuse liberals of racism? Nobody seems to complain as much about the ethnic rainbow of dirtbags that line the sidewalks of the Tenderloin.

It's no surprise. Poor and white, as a group, has been cast as the lowest rung of the social ladder in America throughout our history. Don't believe me? Even in 1939 GONE WITH THE WIND used it as a gag (the slaves were disgusted by the "white trash" in the area). And didn't ex-mayor Willie Brown recently say he's reminded why he's glad he's not white after a screening of the film WINTER'S BONE?

And now San Francisco is perpetuating this persecution. I'm not outraged. I just find the hypocrisy of the city that claims to be diverse and socially just, really sad.

Posted by Joe the SF Republican on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 11:24 am

don't they Joe? It's nutty to pit white homeless people against minority homeless people. And the reason why there's a big to-do in the Haight is because the median home listing price there is just shy of $1 million. Rich people don't live in the Tenderloin, so it's not as useful to make the TL homeless the flashpoint of the pro sit-lie campaign.

Not to mention the fact that not all TL homeless people aren't white, and not all the Haight Street kids are white -- Piss, from my story, was mixed race.

Posted by caitlin on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 12:33 pm

I would have let my comments stand, but you had to work that liberal magic and turn them into something they aren't. So let me defend/retort and clarify:

I know there are white street people in the Tenderloin, that's why I used the term "rainbow." I would even go as far as to say most of the drug addicted prostitutes are white, so there you go for equal representation. I also purposely avoided the term homeless because that area seems to be populated by alot of people with places to live, they just choose to spend their days on the street (no absolutes here, just another generality) unlike the people of your article who seem to be mostly homeless.

I didn't "pit" anybody (I doubt if the kids in the Haight are even aware of the bias against them), most homeless are usually more social in general, regardless of race. And I didn't say ALL Haight Street kids are white, reread what I said. Are you going to argue that point? You were there for several days, the best you could do was a kid named Piss who "was mixed race." Okay, there's your 1 out of 10.

And you need to lose that passe belief that the TL is worthless tract of land where "rich people don't live." Everyplace in San Francisco is expensive! The Tenderloin is commercial property and there is lots of money there. Those buildings are ten times a Haight Street house.

My point was: The city government and alot of SF NIMBYs thinks its okay to persecute a group when it's predominately poor and white.

Tenderloin property owners aren't being nonchalant, they're grinding their teeth wishing they could be tough on street people. But it will never be, because they would be viewed as "racist." But in the Haight, it's just a bunch of snot-nosed whites kids, so it's okay. I find that hypocritical. And you're too much of a liberal to admit you see it, too.

So, yes, Caitlin. In San Francisco minorities do get all the breaks.

I wont reply again, skewer me and have the last word. I think I made my point the first time.

Posted by Joe the SF Republican on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

I definitely don't think the TL is a "worthless tract of land," as I'm sure my last cover story for the SFBG makes clear:

http://www.sfbg.com/2010/09/28/test-tenderloin

And I think you raise an interesting point about the Haight street kids being mostly white (Piss wasn't the only non-white person out there, sidebar) but I'm not sure that sit-lie supporters would change their tune about the matter if they weren't. I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here, to be honest.

And on a general note, skewer? The nasty tone that comments sometimes take on here bums me out. But I guess... we have to argue with someone? Whatever -- that's another thread I guess.

Posted by caitlin on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

This is to all of the racial comments. I am actually the girl in the picture with this article with the dog. If you care to talk trash to me I really dont care, I will probably never be on this page again. I dont understand why race is always such a big issue to you people. This also goes for the "No Whites Allowed" post.
We really just dont view this the same why. While I was in town it was extremely racially mixed. My traveling partner, whom you see to my right in the picture is Philipino and my traveling partner before that was mexican and I am a white female. We really dont get targeted so much for our races or sexes, but it does happen. However, mores so we just get attacked as a community as a whole. For most of us, this is a means to an end. I am personally traveling to find somewhere I would like to stay and I have job opportunities. Unfortunately, its not so easy to get a job when you have no adress, no shower and no clean clothes. I mean come on, half of society that has all those things and more cant get a job.
Sit/Lie criminalizes the only medium we have to communicating between our separate classes and communties.
Over the time I was there I talk to teachers, psychology students(who interviewed us), locals, police officers, other travelers, people that took the times to talk to us or listen to our music and watch the immediate disgust of others.
What would you like us to do instgead? Go become crackheads in the TL?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2010 @ 12:37 pm

left does, it's not all about race.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 10:52 pm

Caitlin, your article was certainly a romantic portrayal.

I lived in the Haight for seven years and though the lefty in me feels guilty for saying this, I found the street kids to be the one of the truly annoying aspects of living there (probably followed by the persistent graffiti). I used to call that one corner - depicted in the article's photograph - the "gauntlet." Because it was incredibly uncomfortable picking your way through a line of dirty and dirty-smelling kids with pit bulls while being semi-harangued for money.

Posted by guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 11:26 am

It sounds like the "lefty" in you disappeared some time ago, assuming there was any there in the first place. Claiming to be "lefty" or "liberal" and then writing posts to support a right-wing position is a fairly common trait of the right-wing on message forums. Your post is a little different. They usually start out like this...."I'm a liberal but ..." and then they proceed to support whatever right-wing position is the topic of the moment.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 1:04 am

Barbara, you can't be serious. You make the false assumption that being a leftist means staunchly opposing anything that the right wing supports. That's total BS. There's nothing wrong with expecting that our tax dollars will help to ensure a decent quality of living. I'm 22 years old and sick of the panhandlers who have never held a job and who feel entitled to intimidate and harass the productive members of society. The fact of the matter is that we pay taxes and the street kids do not. Who owns the streets, then, and is it wrong to expect that we (yes, the Progressives) are entitled to enjoy OUR streets?

Posted by Alex on Oct. 25, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

Barbara, interesting logical leap you took. No, I'm not right wing, and I didn't even make a statement against or in favor of the "sit-lie" proposition. I pointed to an accumulation of negative social experiences that I had, which were mundane, yet valid. I don't have to be right wing in order to say that a something was unpleasant element of daily life. The "lefty" in me felt guilty for expressing dislike of something, because I like to think of myself as a tolerant person and -- as your case makes clear -- those on the left aren't always tolerant of _perceived_ intolerance.

And I believe that I have plenty of sympathy for the downtrodden: my own mother suffers from a severe mental illness, went missing for 13 years, and homeless for a period of time. I understand that for some, homelessness is seen as a right of passage. However, I believe there is a significant difference between those who are homeless by election and those who end up that way by fault of genetics, etc.

Posted by guest on Oct. 25, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

Expel the Anarchists

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 11:27 am

Romanticized the Haight only perpetuates the issue,this kids need real help not a quarter and a patronizing story. This is George Harrison's take on the place:

"You know, I went to Haight-Ashbury, expecting it to be this brilliant place, and it was just full of horrible, spotty, dropout kids on drugs. It certainly showed me what was really happening in the drug culture. It wasn’t what was I thought of all these groovy people having spiritual awakenings and being artistic. It was like the Bowery, it was like alcoholism, it was like any addiction. "

Not much has changed.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

Caitlin Donohue's article is an effort to romanticize the drug-driven behavior of the migratory addicts and alcoholics of Haight Street. His account will seem credible to those who live in a fantasy world about addiction.

However, most San Franciscans have enough street savvy to know better. From their personal experiences, they plainly see the reality about addiction and alcoholism on the streets, which Donohue's fantasy cannot disguise. He might as well have claimed that cancer promotes youthfulness.

Granted, addicts and alcoholics need help. But they also need control. That's because of the harm they do to themselves, their environment, and those around themselves.

If a drunk gets into a car and runs someone down, no rational person would say the driver should be excused because he or she was drunk. Much less, would any rational person romanticize such a driver.

Yet Donohue romanticizes packs of migratory addicts and alcoholics when their drug-fueled behavior undermines neighborhood well-being and safety. And he expects sensible voters to take him seriously!

As a supporter of Prop L - the civil sidewalks law -, I was happy to see Donohue's article appear. It is a reductio ad absurdum of the mentality that opposes neighborhood safety and civility. The article's effect will be to make most sensible voters roll their eyes at such fantasy-driven thinking and vote yes on L.

The opponents of civility would have done better if they had frankly acknowledged the behavior problems of the city's addicted sidewalk squatters and come up with a solution that they believe is better than Prop L.

However, they have been unable to do either. This double-barreled failure will cost them dearly at the polls.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

But thanks for your comment Arthur.

Posted by caitlin on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 4:31 pm

what drugs are you on? isn't caitlin donohue a female? this cracked nut think caitlin is a guy. i would think that someone who writes such pompous manure and who's all about intellect and intellectual would know that caitlin is not a guy.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 4:44 pm

The summer of love was more than fifty years ago. Its epicenter is now filled with million-dollar properties and their provincial owners. Are they going to be convinced by an argument to preserve this subculture of nonconformists? Will anyone with any influence whatsoever be convinced? Aside from some garishly pandering storefronts, the Haight is more Pac Heights than peace-and-love. The battle has long been lost.

Meanwhile, L obviously targets the homeless. SF's quixotic attitude towards its most vulnerable residents is disappointing. Some commenters damn them with labels of addiction, dirty, and squatting. Exposing sympathetic characters is "romanticizing." Apparently being homeless is the same as driving drunk.

Moral cowardice seems endemic with wealth. Can we only afford to do the right thing when we're poor and politically unrepresented? Unsurprised and disappointed.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 3:38 pm

I think you meant flout social norms, not flaunt social norms

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 3:49 pm

Other than romanticizing how else would you describe the characterization of these kids with problems as "travelers"? This article glosses over the very real issues of abuse, violence and addiction that many face.
I think this type of journalism is harmful, SF clearly does not have the resources to help all comers. Advertising the Haight in such a light could bring kids here and into harms way; rather than seeking resources that may be closer to home.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

Good idea.
You should compile a guide to the "resources that may be closer to home" and distribute it to them before they leave for San Francisco.
The rest of us will forever owe you a debt of gratitude.

Posted by Tom on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

I don't think I offered an idea, so it isn't very good.
Clearly the resources aren't here but why not invite every troubled child from the middle of america to come here live on the streets. Is that what you are offering?
Or if you like the idea of a guide; you are connected to the internet compile it yourself, then you'll be the man and we'll be indebted to you.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

This little old wierdo just loves to listen to himself talk.
It's embarrassing to read the writings of someone so completely self deluded about their own persuasive writing ability, their own supposed intellect and their imagined importance to the lives of anyone else.
Reading his rantings is like watching some naked dirty little bedbug crazy man wander down the street, having an extremely important conversation with nobody.
Which is probably a pretty fair explanation of why Arthur Evans is so passionately against the various hobos, and street people, and the poor in need of sympathy and assistance.
He's so close to it he can taste it.
He can see his own reflection there, which disgusts and terrifies him.
So he attacks them tirelessly and without mercy.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

"Reading his rantings is like watching some naked dirty little bedbug crazy man wander down the street, having an extremely important conversation with nobody."

Its funny that you say that, because I saw Arthur on the bus about a month ago and he did have a giant bug crawling on him that I picked off of his sport coat with holes in the armpits! He looked like he may have been rolling around in the park, though he also looked very disoriented, as if a bucket had fallen on his head when he was walking down the street.

Posted by Nate Miller on Oct. 22, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

I will ask three questions which the supporters of sit-lie have yet to answer. They refuse to answer these questions. Where do you propose to get the money to pay for the implementation of Prop L? According to Santa Cruz which has sit-lie (NOT a city-wide law, mainly in their downtown area), their version has required a "Herculean effort" with lots of cash. Well residents & merchants in the Haight recently said NO to any more money for street services. Where do the proponents propose to put the human beings rounded up under Prop L? Also, under Prop L, will it be illegal to be homeless within the City and County of San Francisco? Still waiting for an answer to these questions. The fact is, if sit-lie is not going to be funded (and it won't be) why pass Prop L? As a representative from Santa Cruz said to San Francisco regarding this issue "people are looking for a magic pill and none exist." But the good news is that should this revolting law pass, it won't be funded so nothing will change. Life will go on as if sit-lie did NOT pass. Good. Also, I wish people would not refer to homeless people or street people as "hobos," (an outdated word that goes back to at least the 1930s and was first heard around 1890....just a bit outdated), "bums," "tramps" and other pejoratives, some of which I have read on this forum and especially on another website. There's no need for that. These human beings are already down. There's no need to disrespect them by calling them those terms. Does one call people sitting in wheel chairs "cripples," or "bums," or "hobos." They are all pejorative terms.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 5:08 pm

I saw many signs which supported Sit-Lie. It made me think deep thoughts about both signage and Sit-Lie.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

of Sam's internal monologue.

As Sam walks down the street... "sit lie sign 13, rock, crack in the sidewalk, tree, window, sit lie sign 14, pavement, curb, tree, sky, pizza, show, pedestrian, window, crack in the sidewalk, monkeyfrisbeebannanawaltz, sit lie sign 15...."

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

Matlock?
Really?
What the fuck are you? An Andy Griffith fan?
Aunt Bee’s Anus or Barney Fife’s Ball Sack would be more like it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

This little old wierdo just loves to listen to himself talk.
It's embarrassing to read the writings of someone so completely self deluded about their own persuasive writing ability, their own supposed intellect and their imagined importance to the lives of anyone else.
Reading his rantings is like watching some naked dirty little bedbug crazy man wander down the street, having an extremely important conversation with nobody.
Which is probably a pretty fair explanation of why Arthur Evans is so passionately against the various hobos, and street people, and the poor in need of sympathy and assistance.
He's so close to it he can taste it.
He can see his own reflection there, which disgusts and terrifies him.
So he attacks them tirelessly and without mercy.

Posted by Tom on Oct. 20, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

Related articles

  • On the margins

    44TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: At risk youth struggle to get by in a city that's tough on young people

  • The soul of the city

    44TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: The creative class — particularly the young people who are going to be the next generation of the creative class — needs space to grow

  • On the edge

    44TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: For foster youth, turning 18 means growing up fast

  • Also from this author