The politics of sit/lie

|
(91)

It's no surprise that Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to put a sit/lie law on the ballot, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the supervisors are moving slowly on his proposal. It has nothing to do with any facts -- the cops could enforce existing laws and address the problem.

No, this is all about politics. Newsom never wanted the supervisors to approve a sit.lie law; he and his operatives want to put it on the November ballot, so they can use it as a wedge issue to attack progressive candidates. They can also use it to raise money, which can be spread around through slate cards to support his supervisorial picks.

Remember, this is how Newsom got elected mayor: He picked a wedge issue (general assistance payments to homeless people), created a slogan ("care, not cash"), raised a ton of money, and made it his signature campaign strategy. It worked, so he's trying again.

Before Arthur Evans leaps in and attacks me, let me say: I know there are people in the Haight who want this law. (There are also people in the Haight, including the venerable Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, who oppose it.) But I don't think Newsom really cares about that; if he did, he'd work with the supervisors on a compromise or alternatives. Instead, he's refusing to participate in the board's debates.

This is all about November's board elections. Sorry, Arthur, but your pet cause is now the mayor's political tool.

Comments

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.

Posted by Luke Thomas on May. 25, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

progressives would be done a better service if they stopped being apologists for Chris Daly's ranting and grandstanding, and then turning around and accusing the mayor of doing it?

Does the ends justify the means, or is the situationalism and confirmation bias that easy to live with?

It's a mystery to me how the justifications and apologias are so fluid with the true believer types, when they pretend to be so principled.

Posted by Mr Matlock on May. 25, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

At least Mr. Daly was accountable and responsive to his constituents. Whatever one feels about his personality or his politics, he has been exceptional in that regard. Newsom is just a lousy elected official.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2010 @ 8:05 am

The Board Of Supervisors has been dragging its feet, so the Mayor goes to the Electorate.

And the Uber left don't trust the electorate on this issue, so you choose to bash the Mayor instead of trying to persuade us why Sit and Lie law would be bad.

If you believe Sit and Lie is bad, persuade us and we'll vote against it, plain and simple.

This is just petty, you are the only one using it as a wedge issue so far.

Posted by Chris Pratt on May. 25, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

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?

Posted by Mr Matlock on May. 25, 2010 @ 2:02 pm

You've got to be kidding. The progressive ideological grandstanding against sit/lie is equally political. Since when did side-WALKS become about sitting and lying rather than WALKING?

In urban planning, sidewalks serve the purpose of moving pedestrian traffic out of the way of cars, bikes and other moving vehicles. They are not designed to sit on or to lie on, or to take a nap on, etc. Concrete is far too hard a surface for that. In a city we have wonderful things like benches and public parks that serve this purpose. Good public planning and zoning laws require that restaurants or cafes that want to sit people in chairs on a sidewalk get permits. Why is this? Because sidewalks are for walking. Can bikes and Segways use the sidewalks? No, because sidewalks are for walking.

The real irony is that the progressive camp is not denying that there are individuals who are loitering, blocking pedestrian traffic, intimidating would be passersby with their pitbulls and similarly snarly stares should you not give them your spare change; rather the argument is that there are already adequate laws to deal with these individuals. That we don't need more laws- just better policing, more outreach. If that isn't political or progressive pedagogy, I not sure what is.

The great diversity that is San Francisco is not promoted by allowing the apathy of transient thugs or drug selling street kids, to sit or lie on our city's sidewalks. If they are busking, then they can stand and I'll happily throw them some change if they're any good. I might even willingly, without being intimidated, buy them a coffee. No these individuals have strategically positioned themselves to be stationary impediments in hustle and bustle of commercial corridors because they are transient, youthful panhandlers with cell phones that are "hanging out" in our great city with nothing better to do.

Perhaps they could take a lesson from the Hippy Hill hippies that sit in their circles in GG park, bang on their drums, smoke pot, take naps, dance with their dogs, whatever....I've got no problem with that. San Francisco doesn't need everyone to be productive in its society, but it does need its sidewalks to let those of us who choose to be productive get on with their business.

Give me back my sidewalk so I can walk on them again.

Posted by Mr. Common Sense on May. 25, 2010 @ 2:45 pm

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.

Posted by tim on May. 25, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

Stop and chat? Yes then move on...

Hang out? Sure but not each and every day...all day!

Sit and have a cup of coffee? Yes, until the coffee is gone and it's time to be on your way.

Tim you and your SFBG colleagues are gainfully employed, thoughtful and spend each and every day on sitting your butts expressing your point-of-view. But even you don't do it on the sidewalk, you're not an obstacle (though some might disagree) and you're not intimidating.

"Too harsh"? Hardly.

Posted by Mr. Common Sense on May. 25, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

A Sit-Lie Law changes all these reasonable activities that you find acceptable into violations of the law punishable by fines and jail time:

"Stop and chat? Yes then move on...

Hang out? Sure but not each and every day...all day!

Sit and have a cup of coffee? Yes, until the coffee is gone and it's time to be on your way."
-Posted by Mr. Common Sense on May. 25, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

As soon as you sit down, you are in violation of the law.

Also, regarding you earlier post: Where on Haight Street are the "wonderful things like benches... that serve this purpose" ?

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

Which basically means its useless and a waste of our time. Please address this law for what it is - a political football for The Mayor to "pass" onto his cronies at CLA to get their boy into office to further their private interests at the cost of our tax dollars. Expensive, unnecessary and toothless.

Exceptions:
1. medical emergencies
2. physical or mental “incapacitation”
3. use of a wheelchair, walker, or similar device
4. sidewalk-based business with an appropriate permit
5. observation of a parade, festival, rally, etc.
6. First Amendment-protected expressive assembly for eight hours or less
7. sitting on a chair or bench supplied by the City government or an abutting business
8. waiting for a bus
9. setting of an object on the sidewalk in conformance with a permit
10. conduct in violation of the above prohibitions, but allowed through some other sort of permit
11. temporary placement of delivered merchandise on the sidewalk

I've a feeling the intended targets of this law might easily fake #2 :) While dancing around outside Arthur's house.

Posted by TheLaw on May. 25, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

Where is the exceptions for street performers? They do not need a permit now nor or ever going to afford to pay for one. Of course, that one will be faked but that is what makes the Haight what it is. Same with Fishermen's Wharf.

Posted by M.E. on May. 27, 2010 @ 8:10 am

The exception will be exactly what it is now.

Selective enforcement of the spirit and not the letter of existing laws based upon need and requirements of the people as a whole and not the desires of cranks and crackpots.

Posted by TheLaw on Jun. 01, 2010 @ 10:24 am

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.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

You paragraph there isn't the issue at hand here.

Its behavior of people, not that they are homeless. You might want to try and look at the history of this, not repeat the "liberal" scare tactics.

Posted by Mr Matlock on May. 25, 2010 @ 4:44 pm

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.

Posted by Andy on May. 25, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

Which basically means its useless and a waste of our time. Please address this law for what it is - a political football for The Mayor to "pass" onto his cronies at CLA to get their boy into office to further their private interests at the cost of our tax dollars. Expensive, unnecessary and toothless.

Exceptions:
1. medical emergencies
2. physical or mental “incapacitation”
3. use of a wheelchair, walker, or similar device
4. sidewalk-based business with an appropriate permit
5. observation of a parade, festival, rally, etc.
6. First Amendment-protected expressive assembly for eight hours or less
7. sitting on a chair or bench supplied by the City government or an abutting business
8. waiting for a bus
9. setting of an object on the sidewalk in conformance with a permit
10. conduct in violation of the above prohibitions, but allowed through some other sort of permit
11. temporary placement of delivered merchandise on the sidewalk

I've a feeling the intended targets of this law might easily fake #2 :) While dancing around outside Arthur's house.

Posted by TheLaw on May. 25, 2010 @ 4:30 pm

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.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 25, 2010 @ 5:06 pm

I'll tell you why - because on these kinds of issues (like with Care not Cash) they lose. They lose because their positions are not supported by the majority of San Francisco voters. And so they try and find excuses and ways to rig the system so they can get their way - things like RCV, publicly-funded elections & district-based elections. Some of these things I support and some of them I don't. But in every single case the reason why the Guardian supported them because they contributed to the maintenance and growth of the Left's political power in this city.

And it's that kind of hypocrisy which turns people off politics. The simpering about "democracy" is crap, just like the continued defense of Chris Daly's outbursts and his desire to make laws for the city that he won't have to obey, because when his term is done he's gonna move his ass to Fairfield. Like the endorsement of Carole Migden, a politician who typifies every single rotten thing wrong with our political system including corruption, abuse of staff and her office and district-shopping.

It's all hypocritical crap and The Guardian knows it.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 25, 2010 @ 8:04 pm

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.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 26, 2010 @ 9:37 am

Some nut wrote this shit:

"Sidewalks are for walking!
You've got to be kidding. The progressive ideological grandstanding against sit/lie is equally political. Since when did side-WALKS become about sitting and lying rather than WALKING...Can bikes and Segways use the sidewalks? No, because sidewalks are for walking.?"

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

Using that "black and white" view of the world, where the hell does this person shit and piss? I'd love to know because the person couldn't do it in the BATH-room because the BATH-room is only for taking a BATH (if the side-WALK is only for walking) in this nut's literal interpretation/fundamentalist view of the world. In order to be consistent, this person would be against shitting and pissing in a BATH-room and would probably start a petition against it!

And one could never have any type of parade (Pride Parade, for example) because We The People would be STANDING on the sidewalk for the parade, and not walking because "sidewalks are for walking," [sic] not for standing watching a parade. Also, some people sit on the sidewalk and watch parades go by. Some bring their lawn chairs to SIT on the sidewalk to watch parades.

I swear, where do these rabid, paranoid, fear-driven trash come from?....and that's exactly what I think of them.

I stand up for the oppressed and for the US Constitution. NO on sit-lie.

Posted by Sam on May. 26, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

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

Posted by Chris Pratt on May. 26, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

One post at a time. LOL.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 26, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

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.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 26, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

You constantly refer to "at-risk-neighborhoods", and imply they require special laws or exemptions from ordinary law making and law enforcement.
Why is this?

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

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

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

Sit-lie has *nothing* whatsoever to do with progressive anything. It is *regressive*. And anyone who says anything to the contrary is a damned liar. Period. It's a wedge issue and intended to be one. It's a class issue. It's intent is to oppress people.

The smug, bourgeois elite, pretentious, nose-in-the-trash trash who support this thing are like many politicians/salespeople (think professional liars): Despite their intentionally deceptive flowery language, they say the *opposite* of what is the truth. They call sit-lie "progressive," even though it's not. Say anything whether it's true or not, the truth doesn't matter! Say it's for the "common good," and for "good will," (ah, what lovely language!), even though it's the opposite. They are very 1984 Orwellian in their approach.

Up = down
left = right

You get the idea.

They use the same language and tactics as the bourgeois elite paid Internet trolls.

NO on regressive sit-lie.

Posted by Sam on May. 26, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

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!

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 27, 2010 @ 12:18 am

You constantly refer to "at-risk-neighborhoods", and imply they require special laws or exemptions from ordinary law making and law enforcement.
Why is this?

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2010 @ 8:00 am

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.

Posted by M.E. on May. 27, 2010 @ 8:27 am

In a post above, M.E. says:

"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."

Have you ever looked at the overall approval rating of the board of supes in polls in SF? It's about the same level as the final approval ratings for George W. Bush.

Question authority. And above all, the authority of dunces.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 27, 2010 @ 9:37 am

"go get signatures on a petition. Right now proponents can't even get people to show up at public meetings."

This regressive and Un-San Franciscan Sit-Lie Law is lusted for by a tiny but vocal group of control freaks and partisan politicians.

Your biggest "rally" consisted of twelve people, and most were paid to be there by a Hotel Company. And a small fraction of people from the Haight- how many? Another ten?
And a handful of people answered a misleading question from the Chamber of Commerce- Would they support a law that protects them from being harassed and assaulted? Of course they said Yes. No one asked if they were aware of the protection from these things provided by already existing laws. No one asked if a person should be arrested for sitting in front of their own house.

To sum up, you have little support for your regressive law.
What you have is the hope that, at the ballot box, you can channel the general hatred and disgust and anger of the public at large towards the people they consider the "other", while wounding themselves in the process.
Which makes you a disgusting excuse for a human being.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2010 @ 11:51 am

You constantly refer to "at-risk-neighborhoods", and imply they require special laws or exemptions from ordinary law making and law enforcement.
Why is this?

"Standing up for at-risk neighborhoods"
-Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 26, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2010 @ 11:56 am

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!

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 27, 2010 @ 2:02 pm

Scrolling down here, I saw that someone had quoted me. It was migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans. Ugh. One can't edit on here but I had meant to write, "nose in the air trash." I wrote "nose in the trash trash." I suppose that could work too.

So apparently migratory Arthur Evans can't stand the Board of Supervisors either. Why am I not surprised?! Of course that would be the case, because generally speaking the BoS are forward-thinking and migratory sit-lie addict is backward-thinking and for the oppression of people.

Smug Arthur Evans wraps his rabid agenda in the name of "eloquence" and "civility," (and other lofty, poetic BS language) but his message remains the same. No matter how he wraps it, his message is really the oppression of people. He's running a class war. The bourgeois elite (or those who pretend to be) against everyone else.

And he and other members of the bourgeois elite sit-lie migratory pack won't be content until this City looks like Walnut Creek. San Francisco is a major city. it's not a well-manured suburb. If you like Walnut Creek and want a well-manured suburb, MOVE THERE. But no, the migratory pack of sit-lie addicts are not about to do that. That would be too easy... and the intelligent thing to do. Wouldn't want to do that.

One can tell this guy the same thing over and over. He may read some of it, but it doesn't go in or register. His "floppy drive"* is full and has no more room.

(*"Floppy Drive" = yes, I know that's dated language and that's the intent.)

Posted by Sam on May. 27, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

Meanwhile, we here in District 6 enjoy well-manured streets.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 03, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

In your post above, Sam, you refer to "migratory Arthur Evans."

Before using polysyllabic words, Sam, you might want to check their meanings first in the dictionary. You do best with monosyllabic grunts.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 27, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

You have confused yourself and your rotting garbage of an idea with “civility”.
Not surprisingly, reasonable and intelligent people are opposed to you and your crusade against what you judge to be unacceptable behavior on their part.
Your pretending that they are opposed to politeness does not diminish this fact.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

Mind Your Own Business Law

We need to protect our neighborhoods and internet from the damaging behavior of the Migratory Attention Addict who now flocks here because attention is readily available and well meaning people are willing to waste their time and energy on the Migratory Attention Addict in an effort to be civil and respectful.

This disgusting troll, who tirelessly labels whole groups of people he has never met as "packs of migratory addicts and alcoholics", "squatters", and "narco nomads", is deserving of neither civility nor respect.
His latest transparent efforts to bring attention to himself and stave off the meaninglessness of his own existence as a lonely old has been, and a philosopher so useless that no one has heard of him unless he told them himself, are deserving of ridicule for their utter self centeredness and his willingness to trade the rights and well being of his neighbors for a fleeting sense of power and attention.

The proposed Mind Your Own Business Law is a reasonable effort in this direction. It's not the whole answer, but it will give our neighborhoods and internet a fighting chance against this Migratory Attention Addict.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2010 @ 3:59 pm

Hola Guest,

Right-on!

Oh I do so agree. Yes, let's all support the MYOBL (aka Mind Your Own Business Law). It is a very good first step of ignoring snotty, snooty, pretentious, nose-in-the-air, bourgeois elite trash in our society who think they are so much better than other people and who want to oppress other people who are not from the same economic class as themselves. Just say no to bringing Walnut Creek to San Francisco.

Wealth should have nothing to do with how much one deserves when it comes to human rights and human dignity. People should not be oppressed because they are not wealthy.

Posted by Sam on May. 27, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

I believe the current idiom is "attention whore" or in common parlance "crank".

Posted by Harry Larvae on Jun. 04, 2010 @ 2:52 pm

“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

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 27, 2010 @ 5:13 pm

You constantly refer to "at-risk-neighborhoods", and imply they require special laws or exemptions from ordinary law making and law enforcement.
Why is this?

"Standing up for at-risk neighborhoods"
-Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 26, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

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.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 27, 2010 @ 9:42 pm

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

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2010 @ 7:59 am

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.

Posted by Sam on May. 28, 2010 @ 1:23 am

Have the opponents of the sit/lie proposal ever stopped to think about what happens to perfectly normal individuals that live on the streets after a period of time.
I have seen many of them personally deteriorate as time goes by.
They take drugs and alcohol to cope with the difficult situation living on the streets brings.. As we all know this leads to violence, theft, etc..
Why ENABLE this to happen.
The sit/lie will make it difficult to continue this livestyle and will lead them to shelters, drug rehabilation,or seek help, or move back home to their families.
San Francisco has empy beds that are not used.
Merchants revenues and tourism will increase when the sidewalks are clean and inviting.
Consequence is more taxes for the City to provide help for the unfortunaate.
I f you care you would want the people on the streets to seek help that is provided by San Franciso.
The services are funded by merchants of San Francisco and the homeowners property taxes.
The police risk their lives for all of us.
They deserve respect not criticism!
Time would be well spent helping the problem with true concern for ALL.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

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

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2010 @ 8:23 am

"I will not teach someone who is not bothered by his inability clearly to put into words what he knows. If I show someone one corner of a square and he does not find the other three on his own, I do not repeat the lesson."

- Confucius

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 28, 2010 @ 8:59 am

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.

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2010 @ 10:04 am

Well, to most of what you wrote, I thought: Duh.

If you don't live here, why do you even care about this and why would you even be commenting on it...since you don't live here? I don't care what goes on in some place where I don't even live! Do you care about Times Square when you don't live there? Do you care about Miami Beach if you don't live there? Or how about Tiburon? I don't care what goes on in Walnut Creek because I don't live there so I don't waste my time with the issues in some one else's neighborhood. Why are people in Walnut Creek so concerned about what goes on in this City? Duh.

Fact: Sidewalks are for walking. BS. Where did you find that? What about the sidewalks covered with tables and chairs from restaurants? THERE people are sitting and eating on the sidewalk. If one has trouble on the sidewalk and you can't get around it or through the problem, psssssssssst: call the police. They can do something. They don't need ANOTHER law.

You say you can't afford to live here. If one really wants to live here, one will find a way of doing so. It may require having roommates or adjusting one's cushy way of living to a way of living very simply and frugally, but if one really wants to live here, one will. I know people exactly like that. They live very frugally because they want to live here.

Walnut Creek: Mind your own damn business. Concern yourself with your own sidewalks.

Posted by Sam on May. 28, 2010 @ 1:13 pm