Sit-lie: A city planning issue?

|
(4)
Reclaiming the sidewalks as a protest against the sit-lie law
Ben Rosenfeld photo

The City Planning Commission will be taking up the proposed sit-lie law April 1. No, that's not an April Fool's joke -- city planners are going to take testimony and weigh in on the proposal to ban sitting on the sidewalks. Why is this a planning issue? Well, Commissioner Michael Antonini asked for a hearing to see what other cities do (and he'll probably push the commission to endorse the law) -- and Commissioner Christina Olague wanted to see what impact the law would have on the city's Pavement to Parks program.

It's a serious question: A Planning Department staff report (PDF) discusses the issue in some depth, noting that the General Plan suggests that "parts of wide sidewalks can be turned into children's play areas and sitting areas for adults." General Plan policy 26.1 calls on the city to "consider the sidewalk as an important element in the citywide open-space system." After all, streets and sidewalks take up 25 percent of all the land in San Francisco -- far more than the parks.

And the Planning Department has been moving actively in the past year to turn more bits of pavement into temporary urban parks, places that used to be streets or sidewalks where people are now encouraged to .... sit. "It is unclear if the ordinance would apply to the temporary plazas and informal seating crated by Pavement to Parks," the report concludes.

So expect some sparks to fly here, and for a heated debate if the commission tries to take action supporting or opposing the law.

 

Comments

Why is it important to know what other cities do? Who cares what they do?

If there is a problem with someone on the sidewalk have The City put bicycle cops in The Haight. According to the SFPD, they say they are very successful when on bicycle. Or even hire a beat cop or two for the sidewalks.

This so-called "problem" is being blown way of proportion and being made as big as it can possibly be made for political purposes only and for the rabid right-wing's agenda. They are hell-bent on changing this City and this nation to Nazi Germany. That's where they want to go. And they don't have too far to go, if one has been paying close attention to what's going on particularly at the federal level with the D and R congress and the neocon Republican in the White House.

Did you see the latest thing he did? Check this out from BBC News:

Barack Obama eases offshore oil drilling ban
"Oil firms could be given the chance to explore for reserves off the US coast for the first time in decades, under plans outlined by President Obama. The White House says drilling will be allowed off Virginia and considered off much of the rest of the Atlantic coast."

Let's wreck the environment even more! That's "Change We Can Believe in," isn't it?! It was a bullshit marketing slogan that the sheep allowed themselves to fall for from this fraud in La Casa Blanca. Most people who voted for this guy didn't give a damn about Obama's Bush-accomplice voting record from the senate. "Hope" and "Change we can believe in" was sufficient for them. And The Guardian endorsed him and they will probably do so again (because he has a D behind his name) using the "lesser of two evils" BS rut. I voted for Nader/Gonzalez.

Stop the right-wing takeover of this nation.

Oppose sit-lie.

Hitler would proudly support sit-lie.

Posted by Sam on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

Because this is a city full of professional busy bodies on the payroll with apparently to little to do so they find things to do with the citizens tax dollars.

If that idiot wants to know what other cities do, he could just pick up the fucking phone. He must be running for something.

Remember all the street furniture and trees at the Powell St turnaround that were tore out because the cities experts said it would get rid of the hobos? It didn't work.

So the experts now want to put some street furniture back and it somehow has something to do with lifestyle begging? This must be a change in policy to encourage drug abuse and drinking on the sidewalks?

Posted by glen matlock on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

Even proponents of Democrat Gavin Newsom's proposed Sit/Lie law often admit it is designed to deal with problems in just a few parts of the city, notably the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood.

So why should all San Francisco residents be burdened with an unconstitutional new expansion of government power at the expense of their civil liberties and taxpayer-funded police resources?

To the extent that belligerent street people are actually violating peoples' rights in the Haight or elsewhere, SFPD should simply adjust its presence in those areas accordingly, and enforce existing laws (perhaps instead of wasting their time and our money going after people for peaceful, consensual sales and use of sex and drugs).

The proposed ordinance is a result of political posturing and is totally unnecessary.

To check out a cool video on why you own your own body and what you do with it should be up to you so long as you don't commit aggression, visit http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Posted by Starchild (Candidate for Supervisor, District 8) on Apr. 03, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

Even proponents of Democrat Gavin Newsom's proposed Sit/Lie law often admit it is designed to deal with problems in just a few parts of the city, notably the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood.

So why should all San Francisco residents be burdened with an unconstitutional new expansion of government power at the expense of their civil liberties and taxpayer-funded police resources?

To the extent that belligerent street people are actually violating peoples' rights in the Haight or elsewhere, SFPD should simply adjust its presence in those areas accordingly, and enforce existing laws (perhaps instead of wasting their time and our money going after people for peaceful, consensual sales and use of sex and drugs).

The proposed ordinance is a result of political posturing and is totally unnecessary.

Posted by Starchild (Candidate for Supervisor, District 8) on Apr. 03, 2010 @ 4:39 pm