You nailed it, Tim. It amazes me that Newsom is playing politics with public safety. Alas, the average voter is not so informed and will not see Sit/Lie for what it is. Gascon is Newsom's partner in crime on this one.

Oh the irony of it. A mayor and police chief committing political fraud.

It started from people complaining at neighborhood meetings, it was picked up by the newspaper and gained some level of common knowledge amongst the peasants that the Guardian supposedly claims to speak for. This is the way progressives tell us grass roots politics should operate, unless things don't go their way of course.

Yes, Newsom is using it to his own ends... and that is a shock! No progressive on the board has ever grandstanded over anything. From a paper in love with the bi-polar rants of Chris Daly...

Oddly, when cops enforce existing laws the progressives go into hysterics so that "enforce existing laws" is just another deflection worthy of Gavin Newsom I guess?

Mirkirimi had a long time to call for "enforcing existing laws," after he was repeatedly made aware of the situation by the citizens of his district, now we should give him and the rest of these zeros a mulligan?

I'm not sure I agree that sidewalks are just for walking. I think they're part of the shared urban space, and are perfectly fine places to stop and chat, hang out with friends, maybe sit and have a cup of coffee. This idea that they exist only to move people along is a little harsh.

The real problem with Sit/Lie is that it does nothing to address the root causes of the problem. We need much more affordable housing, but the political will doesn't exist to make that happen. It's much easier just to sweep the homeless off the street and out of our sight. Shame on everyone who's advocating that superficial and inhuman solution. If people hanging out on the sidewalk is the biggest problem you have, I envy your easy life.

Anyone who lives in San Francisco knows sidewalks are not just for walking.

Where should I begin? Chess players on Market Street; musicians, poets, artists, performers in Union Square, Fisherman's Wharf, the Haight etc.; food carts in the Mission; Sidewalks sales by businesses and residents everywhere; the list goes on and on.

The San Francisco Planning Commission (which, incidentally is made up of a majority of Newsom appointees) found that banning sitting and lying on sidewalks is in direct contradiction to "scores of city policies that aim to turn sidewalks into vibrant social gathering places."

In one of those spectacularly ironic situations, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce -- the organization funding the ballot campaign for Sit-Lie -- co-sponsored Lemonade Day during Small Business Week in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago. Lemonade Day encouraged children across the city to set up Lemonade stands on the sidewalks to promote entrepreneurialism. The adorable children who participated in Lemonade Day (see pictures at their facebook group) would be CRIMINALS under the Chamber of Commerce's own Sit-Lie ordinance.

There are far too many reasons to be against sit/lie to cover them all here. One very good reason to be against sit-lie is because it would criminalize some of the best things happening in the public spaces of our city.

Please stop saying sidewalks are just for walking. No one believes that.

Constituents in the Haight pleaded for many months with their supe, Ross Mirkarimi, to take the initiative in dealing with the developing public-safety crisis in the Haight.

Mirkarimi failed to attend meetings at the local police station. He refused to answer e-mails from constituents. He said he couldn't make up his mind. He struck empty rhetorical poses.

Initially, Mayor Gavin Newsom hesitated, too. Only after his neighbors in the Haight embarrassed Newsom, did he jump into the leadership space left vacant by Mirkarimi.

It would have been best if both Mirkarimi and the mayor had responded to pleas at the outset. That didn't happen. But it's good that the mayor eventually did respond. It's not good that Mirkarimi is still resting his plumage out on a rhetorical branch, chirping empty slogans.

Mirkarimi's problem is that among his strongest supporters are ideologues who look down their noses at public safety and public sanitation. Their pressure kept him from responding in a timely and effective way to his constituents in the Haight.

Mirkarimi's folly will cost both him and his ideological supporters dearly in November. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Stop making excuses, Tim, for dysfunctional politicians. And stop calling your excuse-making, progressive politics.

I remember when progressivism in SF was a popular movement. In the 1970s in particular, it was a magnet for the brightest minds in the city.

It welcomed diversity, creativity, and good will. It opened the doors of the city to a new and better era in politics. Being part of it was a transformative and joyous experience. I feel both grateful and proud to have been a part of it.

But today, it has ossified into a fixture of the status quo. It is tied to the careers of dysfunctional politicians. It is hostile to independing thinking.

It has become captive to special interests, such as the nonprofit political complex and the cannabis capitalists. Its principle leaders are anti-intellectual, foul-mouthed, testosterone-driven male chauvinists.

This is a common pattern in human experience. Movements start out well, enjoy some success, and improve the world a bit. Then, aftering gaining power, they turn into the sort of thing they once protested against.

SF needs a new, post-progressive reform movement. It won't come from the vicious operatives of the Peskin machine ("Payback is a bitch"). And it won't come from the sphincter-tight dogmatizing of the ideologues with a bunker mentality.

It will come, as it has always come before, from "We the People."

Let's make it happen soon.

@Sam - glad to see "[You] stand up for the oppressed " , bet they feel a whole lot better now.

Amazing but true - Some progressive ideologues denounce a modest effort by residents of at-risk neighborhoods to make their environs safe. The ideologues claim the effort is a right-wing plot to subvert the constitution or, even worse, a fascist-style Putsch.

In fact, the proposed Civil Sidewalks Law could hardly be milder. It requires warnings, not prosecutions, for first-time offenders, and lists a host of exceptions. Most cities that have such laws report only a few citations or prosecutions.

The whole point of the law is to avoid going through the courts, and for all concerned - the police, the migratory addicts who squat on sidewalks, and the residents. The aim is merely to prevent the squatters from colonizing public places for their own exclusive use, to the detriment of the common good.

Making excuses for packs of migratory addicts and alcoholics to colonize public spaces is wrong. Such excuse-making both corrodes neighborhoods and enables a culture of addiction. It is a regressive stance.

Standing up for at-risk neighborhoods under siege and challenging the culture of addiction is the progressive option.

There is nothing "progressive" about putting people in jail for sitting on a public sidewalk while neither blocking nor harming anyone.

Says Sam above:

"The smug, bourgeois elite, pretentious, nose-in-the-trash trash who support this thing are like many politicians/salespeople (think professional liars)."

Thank you, Sam, for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion of civility.

I can see that you have all the qualities needed to be a member of the Board of Supervisors. Ever think of running? You would be a perfect fit!

This law is a colossal waste of time and city money - the lawsuits will come and organizations like the ACLU, which will lead the charge, will be stretched all the thinner. Their funding is tight now. The law is grossly irresponsible. This should not be evaluated on winning or losing. That's just immature.

If the board of supervisors, a large contigency of the public, -- a majority or not -- strongly oppose it, it seems just a waste of time and resources for the mayor alone to take this on. Those saying it is not Democratic should go get signatures on a petition. Right now proponents can't even get people to show up at public meetings.

In a post above, Guest says:

"Which makes you a disgusting excuse for a human being."

When the Civil Sidewalks Law goes to the voters in November, Guest, I hope you will be the one to write the argument in the voters' pamphlet opposing the measure.

Go for it!

“The most encouraging development in the push for a sit/lie ordinance in San Francisco is the founding of the Civil Sidewalks Coalition by Haight Ashbury merchants and residents. Should the coalition, as promised, expand to encompass other neighborhood organizations, then we may have the makings of a real movement to ‘bring civility back to sidewalks and neighborhoods.’”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/25/BUUD1DKATT.DTL

You've had a practice for some time now, Guest, of raising the same questions over and over again. After I answer them, you wait a week or so, and then bring them up again.

I'm sorry you have to deal with the heartbreak of short-term memory loss in your life. However, I, for one, no longer have the patience to deal with it.

I know you won't remain angry at me for pointing this deficiency out to you, since by tomorrow you will no longer remember it.

I give you credit, though, and Sam, too, for one thing that both of you possess in high degree: the purity of the venom in your posts. I hope the two of you won't keep such a precious thing limited here, but instead spread it around through whatever venues you can.

Just be sure to remind the voters that yours is the spirit behind the opposition to the civility law.

I hope you get the maximum exposure.

I read this on another site:

"Gascón is supporting a new organization called the Civil Sidewalks Coalition, which hopes to help build support for the sit-lie ban."

---------------------------

"Civil Sidewalks Coalition?"

With all the problems we have on this planet, these people don't have anything better to do with their time/lives than the luxury of cooking up this shit? How pathetic is that?!

As I and others have said, this is about a regressive political agenda going far beyond anyone sitting on a sidewalk. That is also, in my opinion, why "bad news" Jorge Gascón was brought here from where? The backwards state of hate: Arizona, and we all know what's going on THERE.

Did migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans cook up that Orwellian name for this new group? It sounds just like him from when I used to read the syrupy drivel he writes. "Civil Sidewalks Coalition" reminds me of ICE's "Secure Communities" nonsense. It's the same shit. Oppression. Call it a sweet and innocent name to deceive those who vote (of the eligible voters).

I was on another site and I read a testimonial. Of course the person had to say what has become predictable from the supporters of sit-lie. The person wrote, "I'm not a conservative. I'm a liberal Democrat." I thought: Here we go again! They always have to say that. I try not to go on that backwater cesspool called SF-Hate (a.k.a. SFGate), but when I have been on there and read the comments, it is rather common to read someone being for something hateful and regressive and predictably they write, "I'm a liberal Democrat," and they make sure they say that along with, "I'm not a conservative." Ha! Tell that to somebody who will believe it! People call themselves anything these days whether it has any grounding in reality or not.

I swear, these regressive nuts cook up these nicey-nice, "butter wouldn't melt in our mouths," names for the oppression of people. Hopefully, the voters will see the proponents of sit-lie for who and what they really are, and their transparent regressive agenda for what it is.

NO on sit-lie.

Why write 5 paragraphs, but not link to your supposed earlier answer?
Come on, Mr. Philosophy.
What exactly is an " at-risk-neighborhood"?

Sam, Arthur, Guest -

Opinion: You'll never persuade a change of loyalty. It would be just as productive to call each other "booger head", punch the other guy's arm, and run away real fast.

Opinion: San Francisco is an extremely expensive piece of real estate. All the wishing in the world won't make it affordable to everyone. I'm back visiting my old neighborhoods (Panhandle and Corona Heights) because I can't afford to live here. I don't lie around wishing otherwise. I deal with it.

Fact: People never totally agree about anything.

Fact: Sidewalks are for walking.

Fact: Sidewalks serve many purposes.

Fact: People lying in my entrance way are viewed BY ME, not everyone, as socially aggressive/inconsiderate, and I resent that they expect me to accommodate them.

Fact: Laws already exist.