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

And so polite, too!

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2010 @ 9:26 am

Read the next points, which are that sidewalks also serve many purposes, and that laws addressing the issue already exist. It's regrettable that you weren't able to extrapolate my inference, but that is often the case when an attitude of moral superiority interferes with reason.

Your "since you don't live here" argument is pure BS. What's progressive about that? 50+ years of living in The City makes what happens here my damn business! My children and grand children, the rest of my family who still live here make it my business.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2010 @ 10:02 am

Now anyone who disagrees with you is not only an "opponent of civility", they are castigated by Confucius.
What a powerful and persuasive team you've built.
Why then are you so frightened to define the phrase "at-risk-neighborhoods" ?
You have used it many times, but you have NEVER defined it.

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2010 @ 11:22 am

Question:

Should the rabid right-wing be successful in changing this City into what they want it to be, what will they have to moan, whine and complain about THEN....after they have accomplished their goal?

I ask that because from reading the comments on SFHate over the years, the majority of the rabid trash on there despise this City and anything about it. Many of them don't even live here and they slip and let that be known on occasion, yet they pretend to live here. They despise the BoS. They despise "lib" [sic] San Francisco. Sit-lie is part of the rabid right-wing agenda for changing the City, along with this "Secure Communities" crap which Mr Political Opportunist (Newsom) has "no reservations about." And I have no doubt that there will be more regressive, backward-thinking stuff cooked up by the haters of "liberal" San Francisco to make it like any other City. The rabid right-wing trash have a national agenda. Period.

To me, San Francisco is very special. I don't want this City to look like or be like any other place here in this nation. I like being this little "island" (almost). Can't the rabid regressives just leave us alone---this one place---and obsess on the hell hole they live in? Can't Nevius find a job in Walnut Creek so he will never have to come here again? Can't migratory sit-lie addict Evans find a place to live someplace he really likes and won't have to moan, whine, and complain about 24/7?...while out of the other side of his mouth he has talked about how much he likes the neighborhood he lives in. Uh huh.

But again, should these rabid people (many of whom will say, "I'm a liberal Democrat. I'm not a conservative. This isn't about tolerance.") be successful in turning this City into some right-wing place, what will the rabid trash who don't give a damn about the US Constitution or the oppression of people who are not like themselves have to moan, whine and complain about THEN?

Posted by Sam on May. 28, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

Sam you need to stop referring to people with whom you have disagreements as "trash." You're constantly prattling on about human worth and dignity and then you denigrate and dehumanize others by referring to them as "trash." People are not garbage and the fact you keep referring to them as such indicates much more about your POV than it does theirs.

You're a piss-poor representative for an alternative viewpoint. Were I forced to chose between some of those on this site you refer to as "rabid trash" and yourself I'd chose the former.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 28, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

I was on another site earlier---not based in San Francisco---and I see that someone has started a page (part of a website) with a form letter addressed to Newsom and Chiu urging them to reject sit-lie.

Apparently people from all over the nation cannot believe that progressive San Francisco is even considering something like sit-lie. (Me either). It's a petition. So far they have 200 signatures and their goal is 500 signatures. I doubt it will do anything considering Newsom being who and what he is.

Granted, many of the people who have signed the petition don't live here, but if the rabid trash group can play that game, why can't the progressive group oppose them using the same tactics? That seems fair to me. If some right-wing nut in Walnut Creek wants to change this City backwards, it seems only fair that someone in New York or the District of Columbia should have their say on opposing the rabid trash. What’s fair for one group is fair for the other. But the rabid right-wing "apples, blapples, crapples and slapples" paid political trolls won’t agree with this at all.

But it's good to know that there are some people who don't agree with the regressive, rabid trash in our society, and I consider anyone who wants to take away the rights of other people and oppress people: TRASH. Period. And we have a lot of trash in our society...much of it charading as D and R politicians.

Speaking of trash, the baiting paid political trolls seem to favor these rabid regressive draconian laws. Not surprising though. I would expect that.

Posted by Sam on May. 28, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

“you denigrate and dehumanize others by referring to them as "trash."
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 28, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

Yes, Non-Profit Inc. and its loyal foot soldiers (bums) need their cash - pony up bitches!
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 22, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
bestofthebay.com/politics/2009/04/22/homeless-rally-against-budget-cuts-city-hall

Posted by Guestpaul on May. 29, 2010 @ 8:11 am

Ex: friend, often used between females. Often used in the possessive, as in "my bitch."

Now if I referred to someone as a "rabid bitch" then I'd take being called out on that point. But it's generally accepted within my circles, as a black, feminist, lesbian - that it's entirely OK for wimmin or gay men to use the word "bitch" with one another.

Now bum - I shouldn't have used that. Good on you for calling me out on that. I apologize.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 29, 2010 @ 10:53 am

I just got back from the Castro. Was disappointed not to see the opponents of civility acting out at Harvey Milk Plaza, as in the past.

The opponents flop down on the sidewalk, scrawl graffiti roundabout, and play guitars. Although opposed to the Civil Sidewalks Law, they have been doing a great job of encouraging residents of the Castro to support it.

That’s because the opponents remind residents of the migratory squatters on drugs who come to the neighborhood, flop down on sidewalks, scrawl graffiti roundabout, and play guitars.

Residents are fed up with trying to make their way, unhassled, through the gauntlet of noise and dirt. Yet the message the opponents have been giving residents is that they should oppose the civility law in order to have more sidewalk-squatting, graffiti-scrawling, guitar-playing street people all over the Castro.

With opponents like this, who needs supporters?

Please, bring the opponents of the Civil Sidewalks Law back to the Castro!

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 29, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

How quaintly unintelligent.
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. 29, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

The mayor was smart to let the opponents of civility have a free hand, unchallenged, at the last meeting of the supes' Public Safety Committee.

The tactics and arguments that the opponents successfully used to manipulate the supes are the very same tactics and arguments that turn off the voters.

So give the opponents a free hand at the supes and make sure the public gets a full view of them acting out.

Hey, it worked for Care Not Cash.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 29, 2010 @ 2:41 pm

How quaintly unintelligent.
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. 29, 2010 @ 10:10 pm

Earlier today, my partner was talking with an acquaintance who was extremely upset over sit-lie and what is going on in AZ with the immigration issue.

My partner asked him: Do you think this is the beginning of the next civil war in this nation?

The guy said: I will be the first one to grab my gun and fight these fascist right-wingers from taking over our country.

My partner felt the guy's reaction was rather serious. He had not seen this guy this upset before and in the past this guy has been much more laid-back. The guy said, "people are upset about this."

The guy was also rather close friends with Harvey Milk even before Milk became famous and the guy is a true liberal, not one of these faux liberals of today. And yes true liberals are for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Posted by Sam on May. 29, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

I hope many people read the post above by Sam. He equates the proposed Civil Sidewalks Law in SF with the vicious assault on immigrants in AZ.

He views supporters of the Civil Sidewalks Law as "fascist right wingers."

He approvingly mentions a friend who fantasizes about using his gun against supporters of the Civil Sidewalks Law.

And all in the name of progressive politics.

Anybody see anything disturbing here?

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 29, 2010 @ 6:35 pm

Arthur Evans wrote: Anybody see anything disturbing here?

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

Yes, and it's you. You need help. Get some psychotherapy, preferably psycho-dynamic from a credible PhD level psychologist. Because you need all the help you can get. You are pathetic.

My partner has alerted me to the comment from migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans.

What Arthur wrote above, he made up. Because in my previous comment, I was relaying the comments from an acquaintance/friend of my partner. I suspect most people understood that since I wrote it as simply as I could. My partner's friend made those statements, but Arthur Evans decided he would twist the truth around to suit his rabid agenda and attribute those comments to me.

The point here is that the fascist right-wing trash in this nation are attacking people's civil liberties and trying to oppress people. They come up with oppressive sit-lie and oppressive immigration laws, among other things of oppression. Oppression is oppression no matter how you wrap it and regardless of where it is and regardless of what one calls it. It is still oppression.

And if you don't like guitar players or musicians playing on the streets, that's your problem, Arthur. You remind me of a very sour, old man who---because of his age---has become rabid right-wing, which happens with some people as they age. I don't know what the hell happens to them to cause that! But anyway. Aging is really a mentality, a mindset. Some people (choose to) become old and regressive at age 30 or before.

What Arthur Evans wants is some white gated community like Walnut Creek here in San Francisco. He still hasn't answered why he refuses to move to Walnut Creek and be done with it. And please don't come up with some story of the 60s in the Haight because you (Arthur) clearly missed the point of the 60s entirely.

Isn't it time for you to come out of the closet and move to Walnut Creek? Be who you really are?

Posted by Sam on May. 29, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

fascism: : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

According to Merriam-Webster, you and your Sit-Lie Law buddies are fascists.
Live with it.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2010 @ 10:48 pm

If people are "upset" about sit/lie then they'll have a chance to vote against it come November, right Sam?

We'll find out then how outraged San Francisco is about our municipality having the same law they have in Berkeley.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 29, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

It is immaterial what other cities have "sit-lie." Two wrongs of oppression (two or more cities who have sit-lie or something equivalent to it) do not justify oppression HERE. Oppression is wrong, period, no matter who else likes to engage in oppression. It doesn't justify it here. This is San Francisco. To some people, if the majority of those who vote, voted "yes" for slavery, that would be fine too.

Wrong is wrong, and you know it. If one has a problem when one is on the streets or sidewalks, just call the police. That's all one has to do.

Posted by Sam on May. 29, 2010 @ 8:37 pm

what two municipalities have then why is it important how many municipalities have the right to gay marriage?

And I say this as a proud gay person who supports the right to gay marriage.

Newsflash Sam - San Francisco is not an island.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 29, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

In a post above, Sam says:

"the fascist right-wing trash in this nation are attacking people's civil liberties and trying to oppress people. They come up with oppressive sit-lie and oppressive immigration laws"

According to the last poll, 71% of SF voters would support a civil sidewalks type of law.

So 71% of San Franciscans are fascist right-wing trash, eh?

Sam also says:

"You remind me of a very sour, old man who---because of his age---has become rabid right-wing..."

Apparently Sam has never heard of the word "age-ism."

And the kicker is, he puts forward all of the above murkiness in the name of progressive politics!

Let's stand up against obscurantism posing as progressivism, and bring civility and safety to the city's sidewalks.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 30, 2010 @ 12:10 am

Yes, Arthur Evans, you are a fascist.
The definition is just up the page and fits you to a T.
You are not civility.
People opposed to you do not oppose civility. They oppose a terrible law and a weird little old man bent on controlling others who has vomited his personal life out onto the internet and now complains when people point out the obvious. Like the fact that you are old,, haven't gotten laid for a decade, and think you're smarter than everyone around you.

How can you prattle on about reasoned debate while attempting to mislead those you debate with omission and misrepresentation, and denigrating them by ascribing to them an opposition to civility rather than a Sit-Lie Law.?

71% of 500 people (that's only 355) told the Chamber of Commerce they would support a law that would prohibit individuals from harassing pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Only a dishonest old control freak and Migratory Attention Addict would try to mislead people into confusing a biased poll of only 500 people with all San Franciscans.

Over a thousand San Franciscans demonstrated their opposition to the ridiculous No Sitting On The Sidewalk Law (you can go to jail just for sitting in front of your own home) on March 27th.
That’s more than a thousand people taking action (as well as enjoying themselves, their neighborhoods, and the company of their neighbors and tourists), as opposed to 355 people answering the phone when the agenda driven Chamber of Commerce called.
And it means that 3 times as many voters are opposed to the No Sitting On The Sidewalk Law as those who said they would support it, if it prohibited harassment of pedestrians.
Not surprisingly, the Chamber of Commerce neglected to inform the 355 voters that existing law already prohibits this.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2010 @ 8:38 am
Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2010 @ 8:43 am

At what point are you going to see law enforcement walking "their beat' in that area? There are laws on the books that are not being monitored. Do you really think that the police want to do more extensive paperwork for what the public considers a nuisance?

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2010 @ 7:08 am

Arthur Evans uses a linguist and semantic tongue-twister here to conceal that fact.

Mr Henderson does not state in his testimony that complaints require a civilian complaint. He states that he's aware of the Orders and goes on to say that the DA's have never had a complaint about that from SFPD.
Posted by TheLaw on May. 25, 2010 @ 10:34 am

Unblocking the Sidewalks Requires a Civilian Complaint
Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 23, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

sfbg.com/politics/2010/05/11/sit-lie-proponents-criticize-their-allies

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2010 @ 9:03 am

I love watching all the age-ist comments coming out of the mouths of the opponents of civility - and in the name of progressive politics!

They are oblivious to the emerging clout at the ballot box of senior citizens. Many seniors are dismayed about the decline in public safety and civility in the city.

There's a reason for their dismay. Most of the violence and abuse on the part of the city's migratory addicts and alcoholics comes from younger males. These especially target the elderly, women, and men they believe to be gay.

In the Haight, the elderly, women, and gay men have been in the forefront of advocating on behalf of the proposed Civil Sidewalks Law. That's no fluke,

So I, for one, hope that the opponents of civility ratchet up the volume of their age-ist assaults and slanders.

Seniors are listening, and we vote.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 30, 2010 @ 9:45 am

We don't dislike or mistrust senior citizens.
Just you.
We are not against civility.
Just you and your fantasy of a fascist Sit-Lie Law.
We will not be told what behavior, or language, is acceptable by you.

By what authority do you dictate how people behave, talk, and think?
Your only license is your personal madness and self absorption.

Lastly, we are not "progressives".
So you can stick that label up your ass.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2010 @ 10:18 am

Congrats to the opponents of civility who have posted on this thread. Rarely have I seen such a purity of venom in political discourse.

I hope they will continue to act out as they have so far. Nothing could be better suited to motivate thoughtful, undecided voters to support the Civil Sidewalks Law, than their behavior and language.

Hopefully, they won't limit their counterproductive tactics to this chatboard but spread them around in newspapers, TV, and the Internet.

Best of all, they should use the supes' chamber. In eight days, Chris Daly will have another opportunity for a major testosterone fit in the board's chamber over the Civil Sidewalks Law.

Hopefully, the opponents of civility in this thread will forward to Daly some of the language they have used here. With their language and attitude energizing him, Daly could have the mother of testosterone fits. The whole city would watch as he explodes in front of the press box while denouncing civility.

So keep up the good work, guys. Please don't hold back on the testosterone.

Act-out to the max!

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 30, 2010 @ 12:37 pm

There was a guitarist playing and singing last night outside the Castro Muni metro station (Harvey Milk Plaza). I enjoyed his music. He had a nice voice and particularly good falsetto range. I listened for a while. He was quite talented and his style was sort of jazz/Brazilian. His music was very nice to listen to. Many people seemed to notice him (he was amplified but he wasn't that loud) and their faces showed that they enjoyed him. I was waiting for the police to show up and shut him down---as has been happening under this new "bad news" guy---but fortunately that didn't happen, at least while I was there. Some people were giving him $$ to help him out. One guy was sitting on the sidewalk listening to him over by Diesel. I thought: well, under oppressive sit-lie you wouldn't be able to sit on the sidewalk and listen to this good musician and get into the music and the musician might not even be allowed to stand there even though he's not sitting. Who knows how this law would be abused by some thug cops on a power trip?! That's another reason why we don't need this draconian sit-lie law, no matter how the proponents gift wrap it. And even under sit-lie, if there is a problem, one will still have to call the police....just as it is now.

Have a problem? Call the police. We don't need yet another law to oppress people.

Posted by Sam on May. 30, 2010 @ 1:41 pm

Thank you, Sam, for making a post free of obscenities.

Think you can get Guest to do the same?

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 30, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

The other day someone referred to migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans as a "disgusting troll."

He certainly fits the description of an Internet troll, especially the baiting that he does and half-way quoting people, the half-truths and the lies as well as deliberately and intentionally missing someone's point. Lots of baiting of people though. That's one of the trademarks of an Internet troll.

I have previously asserted that AE is a paid troll---he denied it of course---because the last time I Googled Arthur Evans and sit-lie, something like 9 (yes, nine) pages of Google entries came up with stuff that he had written on various sites supporting oppressive sit-lie.

So I have to agree with the person from the other day and....

Don't Feed The Trolls. Just ignore Arthur Evan's ubiquitous shit. (The same for the other trolls on here who bait and consistently deliberately miss the point that people make in their comments). No matter what Arthur Evans says. He's just baiting you to get a rise out of you and he will continue to do so. Ignore him. He just wants attention so he can get paid for baiting people and missing their points on purpose and acting like a skin fungus that won't go away. According to an article I read recently, paid Internet trolls get paid for getting a response/reaction to the bait they put out. One has to respond to the troll in order for the troll to get paid by the person or people paying them to troll around on message forums to promote their agenda.

Imagine getting paid to piss people off. A true "patriot" eh?

Posted by Sam on May. 30, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

on people being "paid" to post messages on the Internet, which he has repeatedly been asked to back up with proof and which he has never done. Sam - where is the proof that people who you disagree with are being paid? And how do we know you're not one of them - you certainly post an enormous amount on this site.

Sam - Arthur posts under his full name, taking full accountability for his actions and what he writes, which is one reason you can Google him - because he's not hiding anything. Why don't you do the same?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 30, 2010 @ 8:07 pm

"Arthur posts under his full name, taking full accountability for his actions and what he writes... because he's not hiding anything. "

See below, where he admits posting under fake names.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

I'm not surprised to see Sam claim that I am getting paid to post here, which is a preposterous falsehood. The opponents of civility have made a practice of churning out one falsehood after another against the supporters of the Civil Sidewalks Law.

This practice is known as ad hominem slandering. Its purpose is to divert attention away from the merits of the arguments presented on a topic and to make another person in the discussion into the topic.

If you look at the various debates on the Net dealing with the Civil Sidewalks Law, the opponents of civility commonly get flustered when flaws in their logic, or gaps in their evidence, are exposed. They respond by lashing out with ad hominem slanders. It's like a chess player overturning the chess board when he or she realizes the game is lost.

This tactic can be effective in the short run because it shuts down debate. But in the long run, it turns off reasonable people who are reflecting on an issue and have not yet made up their minds. They want to see good evidence and consistent logic, not personal slanders.

Ad hominem slandering will not succeed in silencing the people of good will who want to see civil sidewalks become a reality in SF and who present their case rationally.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 30, 2010 @ 10:15 pm

I was over on Fog City Journal and they have an article (05.26.10) about sit-lie written by Luke Thomas. It's a good article. Informative.

(By the way, Jorge Gascón has endorsed Kamala Harris in the race for California Attorney General. Interesting. Luke talks about it.)

And you'd never guess who's over there (at Fog City) too. LOL. Yeeeeeeeeeees, migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans. Oh yes why not?! Why wouldn't he be over there TOO?

I noticed one person in particular over there commenting. Some nose-in-the-air snot by the name of Ruth R. Snave. I thought to myself: This woman is a piece of work. I don't think she could get her nose any higher.

The comments over there were a bit confusing because this Ruth R. Snave would write her drivel and then Luke responded to her by addressing her (Ruth) as "Arthur." Also, this Ruth writes about the "Civil Sidewalks Law" [sic].

So then I Googled "Ruth R. Snave and Arthur Evans," and I found this complementary closing from Arthur Evans in the cache of one site:

Quote:

Yours for rationality in government, Arthur Evans ...... the two of us (for this website, I use the whimsical handle Ruth R. Snave)

End Quote

Oh, so migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans also goes by the name of "Ruth R. Snave" on other sites. That's Arthur's other screen name/handle. Okay.

And this "Ruth" wrote some of the same stuff over there as "Arthur" does over here, such as this:

Quote:

Thank you for your intelligent contributions to this topic, marc.

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

End Quote

Where have you read that last paragraph before? HERE on this site from Arthur Evans to some of the opponents of oppressive sit-lie.

Posted by Sam on May. 31, 2010 @ 1:10 am

It's perfectly okay for contributors to chatboards to use one handle on one chatboard, and another handle on another. What's the big problem?

It's perfectly okay for contributors to answer similar arguments on similar websites. What's the big problem?

Despite all the diversionary flak from the opponents of civility, hoping thereby to take attention away from the issue at hand, these facts remain:

*The move for a Civil Sidewalks Law is a populist one, resulting from residents and merchants in the Haight and other neighborhoods seeking to improve public safety and civility.

*The proposed Civil Sidewalks Law is popular, according to the last poll on the subject.

*The proposed law is mild. It provides for warnings only for first-time offenders. It specifies a list of exceptions to the law.

*Most cities that have such a law report few actual citations and prosecutions. The aim is to avoid engaging the court system by all sides.

*The proposed law is constitutional. It's based on a Seattle model, whose constitutionality has been upheld by the Ninth District Court, whose jurisdiction includes SF.

*Opponents of the law have responded with hysterical claims of "fascism." They tried repeatedly to disrupt discussion of the issue with diversionary tactics, ad hominem slanders, and obscenities.

Bottom line:

Let's not get distracted by the foul-mouthed, flak-shooting opponents of civility. Let's work together to make SF's neighborhoods safe and civil.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 31, 2010 @ 9:00 am

Today, I (and a friend) were walking down 18th Street in The Castro. We weren't too far from Brandy Ho's. The local merchants had put little signs on the sidewalk from Castro all the way past Brandy Ho's.

Farther down, there were children playing on the sidewalk...playing hopscotch and drawing stars on the sidewalk with chalk. I thought: how terrible this is! These children should not be scrawled out all over the sidewalk and writing all over the sidewalk with chalk, just like protesters. What is this world coming to? This should not be allowed. It's time to sanitize the neighborhood. That's what the uptight prudes like migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans/Ruth R. Snave---and whatever else aliases Arthur and Ruth go by when they're trolling around on the Internet---would likely say, along with using the words "civil" and "safe" over and over and over and over, like the professional propagandists they are.

Under oppressive sit-lie, what these children were doing would not be allowed. Because they were sitting and lying on the sidewalk. "We" can't have that because "sidewalks are for walking," we are told by the professional propagandists who want to oppress people. So where the hell are these children supposed to play in the minds of these uptight, prudish, regressive, oppressive, pretentious, nose-in-the-air trash?

From my experience, people who are truly secure with themselves and who they are---regardless of their economic situation----don't act like uptight prudes or supposed intellectual snots. They don't try to control the behavior of other people. The proponents of oppressive sit-lie might have more credibility if they were capable of notching down their nose a few miles. And why don't the proponents of oppressive sit-lie be open and honest about their regressive and oppressive agenda? Their agenda is to change the Board of Supervisors into a more "moderate/conservative" (regressive, all white) governing body. The proponents will not be satisfied until this City more closely resembles stuffy, boring, mostly all white Walnut Creek where another member of the migratory pack of sit-lie addicts resides. That's what this is really about....in the name of "civil" and "safe" patronizing propaganda.

"Let's make sure" we keep this dangerous legislation out of progressive San Francisco and keep our current laws "civil" and "safe" for all, not just the bourgeois elite (or those who pretend to be).

Posted by Sam on May. 31, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

Save Stow Lake Boathouse Coalition, a group including over 1,900
individuals, multiple neighborhood groups and SF Chapter of the Sierra
Club, requested Sup. Mar's help with transparency, fairness and fiscal
responsibility in regard to Rec & Park's Stow Lake Boathouse Concession
Request for Qualification (RFQ). Although Sup. Mar acknowledged major
problems with Rec & Parks and promised to advocate for transparency and
fairness with the Boathouse selection process, he has failed to do so. The
Coalition was lead to believe they had found an advocate in Sup. Mar to
stand up against the secrecy and deception at Rec & Parks surrounding this
process. Since Sup. Mar introduced a resolution on behalf Louis' Restaurant
that isn't even on City property... why won't he take action to protect the
historic, family owned concession at Stow Lake, which is in his district?

This week the Coalition learned that Sup. Mar will not take a stand on
behalf of the people, and will not ask Rec & Parks for fairness,
transparency, or fiscal responsibility for the Stow Lake Boathouse. Rec &
Parks is poised to make a selection on the RFQ soon. Rec & Parks assured
the Coalition that the Coalition would be included on the selection panel
and there would be plenty of time for all interested community to weigh in.
On 12/17/09 Rec & Park General Manager, Phil Ginsburg, promised the Rec &
Park Commission that the community voice would be "woven" into the entire
process. None of these promises have been kept.

For the last 5 years Rec & Parks has wasted taxpayer funds in regard to the
Stow Lake Concession RFP/RFQ process. Some examples of this are: 1) by
keeping the current tenant on a month-to-month lease, so that the boathouse
is now deteriorated and in great need of expensive capital improvements;
2) issuing 5 different Request for Proposals/Qualifications for the Stow
Lake lease, all of which have been fraught with errors, omissions and
vagueness; and 3) withholding detailed reports on the physical condition of
the boathouse needed for any bidder to make a sound business plan in spite
of multiple requests for this information.

Sup. Mar is at the center of this issue because Stow Lake is in his
district and he campaigned saying “WE MUST IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY and
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF CITY GOVERNMENT”. In this situation he fails to do
that, and fails to protect for the people and wildlife at Stow Lake.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

I wouldn't expect any of you "progressives" to care at all about my issues (since I, as a middle-aged working taxpayer, represent The Enemy) but for the record, I am a 22-year survivor of HIV; I work 2 jobs to make ends meet in The City and pay for my health insurance and meds; and I would rather like to be able to walk down the streets of my own neighborhood without inhaling pneumonia, TB, fecal bacteria, and God knows what else is out there -- courtesy of Chris Fucking Daly and his ongoing campaign to transform District 6 into a slightly cooler version of Calcutta. (Apologies to the people of Calcutta, who work hard for a living -- which is more than can be said for most of you No on Sit/Lie bleaters or your enablers on the BoS.)

On behalf of others like me, and on behalf of my landlord who constantly has to have graffiti removed upon penalty of City fines, and in protest against being verbally assaulted by street people blocking the entrances to my building, and against the piles of trash and stolen shopping carts that usually adorn my block, I intend to vote Yes on Sit/Lie. Squawk all you like, indulge your bizarre obsession with Arthur Evans (whom I hate to agree with, as he comes across as a colossal horse's ass in his constant stream of letters to the Bay Times), insult and berate me... but unless you can convince a majority of San Francisco voters to agree that nothing needs to be done, then all your online venting will be for naught.

See you in November.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 03, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

"convince a majority of San Francisco voters to agree that nothing needs to be done"
Try "nothing stupid, pointless and damaging to our civil liberties needs to be done".

Who, exactly, attempted to convince you that "nothing needs to be done"?

Over and over again, the Anti Sit-Lie Law folks have said:
Enforce existing laws.
Why are you not advocating enforcement of existing laws?

Posted by Harry on Jun. 03, 2010 @ 10:57 pm

Because, according to existing laws, an obtrusive or obnoxious sitter/lier can only be moved upon a citizen's complaint -- and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, this can leave citizens open to violent retaliation.

Besides, why should the burden of ensuring adequate law enforcement be placed on the victims -- rather than on the perpetrators?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 04, 2010 @ 8:44 am

Watch the Safety Board Committee hearing on the topic and read the transcript please.

The May 10th "episode".

http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=44

That myth was dismissed and dissected by Asst. DA Henderson and Supe. Mirkarimi despite Mr King's insistence that there was no authority for the police to do so.

What is required is not a new law but a clarification of the police orders between the DA and SFPD.

The SFPD effectively moves "undesirable" people both standing and sitting along in Bayview, SOMA, Fisherman's Wharf and many other neighborhoods without the need for a citizen's complaint on a daily basis.

What is tolerated and enforced in the Haight is a matter for merchants and community-supported neighborhood associations to discuss with the Chief of Police and the Captain at the Park Station not something for the city to vote on.

Posted by Frank McGee on Jun. 04, 2010 @ 3:26 pm