Election 2010: A last sit on Haight Street

|
(77)
Scott Free (on chair) and friends will have to find a new place to play after Prop L's passage tonight
PHOTO BY CAITLIN DONOHUE

I guess sit-lie supporters don't party that late. I arrived at Hobson's Choice, the Haight Street election party central for Civil Sidewalks at 11:30 p.m. only to find the triumphant contingent long gone. "Oh yeah, the last couple guys just left," the bartender tells me. "There was a ton of people here."

Not heading home any time soon, however, was Scott Free, who was sitting on a chair strumming a guitar down the block from Hobson's contemplating the downfall of Prop. 19. Free's been living "outdoors" for the past two years and has lived in the Haight for eight. He's pretty sure the passage of Prop L is just a sign of a change that's been long coming in the neighborhood. "Yeah, sit-lie will change things -- but then, I didn't think they'd be giving smoking tickets in Golden Gate Park. I came to San Francisco from Santa Clara County for the music and the tolerance."

Hard to believe that voters in SF just passed a measure that will effectively ban Free and friends' joyful noise. 

Their buddy is prone on the sidewalk besides him -- drinking away the night that made homelessness illegal and made sure pot remained the same? "He's real upset about it all," Free tells me "he's a big time sitter and liar." 

Comments

>>>I guess sit-lie supporters don't party that late.<<<..........I've been left with the distinct impression they don't party at all (not that uptight, prudish crowd...no way), if they even know what partying is. But I'm glad you said it....Prop L (sit-lie) makes being homeless illegal in the City & County of San Francisco. Outrageous. Of course, the pushers of sit-lie on their website wrote "make no mistake, this is not about the homeless." Yet the police chief and other pushers of sit-lie say that's what it is about. Lies and deception. The positive thing about this is that most people who live here did not vote for it. At this time, the DoE website shows that the turnout was 37.8%. That may go up slightly. But even so, over half of the eligible voters in this City did not vote so "we" don't know how they feel about sit-lie. They didn't feel strongly one way or the other to vote. Hopefully what I read will be true and that is that as a special project, law students at Hastings Law School are going to challenge sit-lie. Maybe it will be repealed just like the sit-lie ordinance in Portland which was found to be unconstitutional because it targeted homeless people. The previous sit-lie law here was repealed in 1979 after the City was getting sued for violating Constitutional rights.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 1:11 am

jesus. you really fucked it up this time san francisco. way to go.

you all should be pretty fucking ashamed of yourselves for letting this piece of shit sit/lie thing pass!

you better goddamn do something about it. i dont know what. but you better somehow fix it. fix it!

*(throws a chair across the room and leaves the city, never to return)*

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 5:06 am

SEE YA...

Posted by Gues tMAC on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 7:11 am

Good riddance you filthy-mouthed, immature moron! I am delighted to be able to walk down a sidewalk meant for walking and not cluttered up with deadbeats, pit bulls, losers and junkies.

It's bad enough I am taxed to death to live in this city and that much of the money they take from me goes to support the above. But when I have to step over bodies lying in their own urine and vomit and worry about getting bit by an unlicensed, unvaccinated pit bull, it is disgusting.

And no, before you start yelling about rich white men, I am not any of those. I make just enough for this city to gleefully fleece me each year with precious little in return.

This law just makes the quality of life a little easier for those of us responsible enough to work hard and take care of ourselves.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 7:41 am

How exactly is this city fleecing you every year? There are few local taxes and property tax rates are capped statewide by Prop. 13. Is this just a vague and unfocused anti-government, anti-San Francisco rant or is there something specific that you think the new mayor and board should change?

Posted by steven on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 10:06 am

Sorry. I am responsible and work hard and this law bans me from sitting on the sidewalk. The homeless aren't the only ones who do.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

Don't be so dramatic- It will not stop you from sitting down - It will stop the Junkie from sitting down, or the wasted stoner with his pissed pants and dirty negected dog from squatting on a sidewalk. It will also stop the poser haight kids who have suburban homes from asking everyone who walks by for a dollar.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

So leave.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

Good riddance you filthy-mouthed, immature moron! I am delighted to be able to walk down a sidewalk meant for walking and not cluttered up with deadbeats, pit bulls, losers and junkies.

It's bad enough I am taxed to death to live in this city and that much of the money they take from me goes to support the above. But when I have to step over bodies lying in their own urine and vomit and worry about getting bit by an unlicensed, unvaccinated pit bull, it is disgusting.

And no, before you start yelling about rich white men, I am not any of those. I make just enough for this city to gleefully fleece me each year with precious little in return.

This law just makes the quality of life a little easier for those of us responsible enough to work hard and take care of ourselves.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 7:42 am

So if this law applies only to the so-called gutter mouthed kids why did the wealthy write themselves an exemption from it but didn't include one for anyone else?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

This may put a damper on the chronic drunk population so that Avalos's fee will be needed even less than it already was.

Posted by tragicomic on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 7:57 am

See ya, don't get back now ya hear!

Posted by HAHA! on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 9:24 am

no one is going to stop you

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 2:29 pm

The Civil Sidewalks Law was like Care Not Cash. Everybody was opposed to each - except the voters.

Both measures passed despite the entrenched opposition of Homelessness Inc because neighborhood safety is an idea whose time has come.

The disgrace is that our local progressive sect turned its back on neighborhood safety and stood instead with Homelessness Inc, which is an enabler of public addiction and public alcoholism.

The big question still remains hanging in the air:

Are we civilized yet?

Well, we made some progress yesterday.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 5:47 am

Thank the true gods that there is finally some intelligence in this city. I for one will be VERY glad to not have to step over or around the great unwashed (or the assholes from whatever podunk town they came from) every time I walk down the sidewalk. SideWALK. Not SideLIE, or sideCAMP.

To the Guest who is "leaving, never to return" - good riddance. You are probably one of those I've had to step over or around.

To the "Lady" who is advocating the Hastings kids' challenging of L - now why doesn't that surprise me. Hastings has long been a den of liberalism, support of Homelessness, Inc. and the rest of the left wing bleeding heart issues.

People LIVE in this city. Time that it becomes important. If nobody lives here but the homeless, where would you little bleeding hearts go for your overpriced lattes and the rest of it? It's past time that people be able to walk around their neighborhoods without having to step around piles of shit or piss, or passed out people. Some sidewalks are so crowded with these people you have to actually walk in the street to get around.

Thankfully, that can now end. Those who work here, live here, and pay taxes here deserve to be able to enjoy living here. Maybe now we can.

Posted by Ken Howard on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 6:38 am

Don't get excited. Prop L will be struck down in court as unconstitutional very quickly.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 8:02 am

Ha ha!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 8:47 am

No, it won't, so you should leave the city also if this is what you want

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

Ha ha (like munson in the simpsons)

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 7:09 am

Good job San Francisco. It's about time!!!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 7:24 am

San Francisco spoke and it's telling all those gutter punks that they are worthless! Now you all have to get out!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 7:31 am

Did you actually read the law?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

>>>jesus. you really fucked it up this time san francisco. way to go.<<<..............No, the majority of San Franciscans did not fuck up (other than if more had voted maybe Prop L would have been defeated). If you were striving to be accurate in the least, you would have written that 53.33% OF THOSE WHO VOTED which was 37.8% of the eligible voters, voted yes on Prop L. As you can see, Prop L barely passed. Most people didn't vote at all. Your post reminds me of another lie I read last night from the spokesperson from the Chamber of Commerce. He said "San Franciscans have spoken" or something to that effect. I thought, no, San Franciscans have not spoken. The majority of San Franciscans said nothing because they didn't vote. The low voter turnout is often never mentioned when people are rattling off how something won by. It's a way of continuing to be deceptive.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

And your psychic powers enable you to read the minds of San Francisco's non-voters? The truth is, the majority of San Franciscans have better things to do than to leave work and go stand in line in order to protect the "rights" of a bunch of filthy hippies who would rather get stoned and hang out all day than actually take care of themselves. And please don't start preaching about the Haight being historically indulgent of this kind of loafing. I couldn't give a shit about a bunch of free love BS. This is yet another example of Baby-Boomer wreckage we are now burdened with cleaning up. And clean it up we shall. But don't worry, Bárbara. You still be able to blow homeless dudes whenever you feel the urge. You just won't be able to do it in the Haight anymore.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

hey not cool. don't be judging people on their sexual preferences man. we don't need that noize in sf. save that for the bible belt. i didn't bother to go back and read the part where barbara said that she does that but i say you go girl!

Posted by TB on Nov. 04, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

All I said about those who didn't vote (which was more than half of the eligible voters) was that "we" don't know how they would have voted but it would appear that they didn't feel strongly one way or the other (regarding Prop L in particular), otherwise they would have voted. Guest is just trolling as usual and best to ignore. Guest is quite willfully ignorant. Apparently Guest has never heard of something called Absentee Ballots. People don't need to leave work and stand in long lines anymore, unless they choose to do so. For years, as a resident, I have voted from home on permanent Absentee Ballots. Poor Guest has never heard of those it would appear. Guest is too wrapped up in hate and anger at fictional hippies.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 04, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

right on!!! you tell em barbara.

p.s.

what's the best corner for cruizing homeless guys? i feel like getting some action this weekend.

Posted by TB on Nov. 05, 2010 @ 12:07 am

and someone made this argument, your position would tough luck.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 04, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

I am glad that Proposition L passed. I have been living about half a mile from Haight Street for the last two years and have been avoiding it as much as possible. I would have liked to be able to go to the Booksmith, Haight Street Market,... and a few other stores that are of interest to me. Unfortunately, the experience has been so unpleasant that I have only been there twice so far. I am shopping in other neighborhoods. The merchants on Haight St. have been loosing quite a bit of business as most of my neighbors feel the same way as I do. I hope that the Sit-lie law will be enforced and that we can walk and shop in our neighborhood.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

Actually the merchants are losing business because people are boycotting the Haight because of this law. Only three stores kept their Civil Sidewalks signs in the window because of complaints. I live in the Haight and will not shop there anymore.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

In another post I wrote about the collapsing economy, but what you've written is also true. Most of those "We Support Civil Sidewalk" signs were taken down by businesses in my area due to the boycott of those business and complaints about the signs, but I continue to boycott those business and will never shop at those businesses again, such as Cole Hardware, as one example. They're on the list of sit-lie pushers.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 1:31 pm

Why don't you simply move to Berkeley? From your tone and your words you'd fit right in. You can be as left-wing as you like there.

Here, we would like to enjoy our neighborhoods without them turning into open air toilets and drug dens, as well as what seem to be ultra efficiency apartments. Sidewalks are not for camping, sleeping, doing drugs, or the like. They are for transport.

Please....please...just do us all a favor and move to Berkeley.

Posted by Ken Howard on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

Oh Ken, why don't you give it a rest and simply move to Marin and be done with it since that's what you're trying to turn San Francisco into. From your elitist tone and your words you'd fit right in. "We" don't need two Marins. I'm staying right here in San Francisco where I can be as left wing as I choose. This right-wing draconian law will hopefully be overturned as un-Constitutional. Although the Constitution clearly means nothing to the right-wing pushers of sit-lie. They have shown themselves for who and what they are. Lying and deceptive people (if one can call them "people") with an extreme militant right-wing agenda. Look at some of the posts on here and how they describe the homeless and street people. Those disgusting posts tell one what kind of despicable person supports sit-lie. And such person is no one I would want to know. I like being with quality and humane people. The big picture for this measure has to do with a right-wing takeover of this City. That's what this is about. Sit-lie is being used as an entry way to install other repressive, right-wing measures. According to a caller from Santa Cruz where sit-lie was discussed, the same thing is slowly happening in Santa Cruz and their sit-lie is not city-wide. The caller from Santa Cruz had nothing positive to say about their sit-lie. So Ken, Please....please...just do us all a favor and move to Marin. We don't need sit-lie pushers here in this City.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 2:52 pm

Barbara informed me that I should leave since I was ruining his Utopia.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

There are so many people who DID vote for it, Barbie....if the people you wax so poetically about who did NOT vote did not WANT L to pass they would have gotten up off their collective nalgases and voted. But they didn't.

Even the bus shelter commandos could not turn the tide. Be as left wing as you want...it's amusing. However, you will not be able to sit/lie/camp/be an asshole on the sidewalks here while you do it.

Unconstitutional? I doubt it. You will have to show PROOF (you remember proof, don't you?) that the law is being used to target homeless. I am quite sure Gascon will properly instruct the SFPD on how to handle this. And shall we even start about the number of homeless who REFUSE offers of shelter? An amazing number do.

Seems they'd prefer to camp out on the city sidewalks and use them for their toilet, drug den, or private living room. Guess what....they can't anymore. Maybe you should have worked harder against L, eh? Or were you too busy congratulating yourself on how left wing you are, and oh how progressive you are, working to turn San Francisco into a homeless haven where you can't walk the streets without wandering into someone's toilet or having to step over them.

And for your information - some of these homeless (note I said SOME) ARE quite disgusting. They smell. They refuse services that are offered. They WANT to be right where they are. I've seen them fight people physically who try to help them. Maybe you should take them in, eh? Let them live with YOU. Let them live right outside your residence every day. I dare you.

Posted by Ken Howard on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

Sit-lie law ruled unconstitutional
Panhandling - A homeless woman beats Portland's ordinance to clear sidewalks

http://tinyurl.com/lvvrow

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

Do you take the position on asking the courts to overturn all ordinances or only those with which you disagree? For example - what was your position on the ordinance banning hand gun ownership by the city and the subsequent decision by the courts that it violated the constitution?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

From what I've been able to find on it, as for sit-lie being ruled unconstitutional, add Cincinnati, St. Petersburg and Los Ángeles to the list of cities. Sit-lie has been ruled unconstitutional in those cities.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 4:36 pm

They already have a sit-lie ordinance in Berkeley. Nobody in opposition to Prop L would move there.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

And Berkeley does sound like a good fit for you

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

I lived in the Upper Haight for 3 years. The biggest complaint from visitors, or the most common reason for people to say "why don't you just come over to my place?" The street kids. They are rude, smell terrible, and a general nuisance to residents. I've had them get angry for me asking them to move out of the way of my front door. They are commonly the kind of panhandler who acts nice until you say "not today," or "sorry" and then they'll start in on name calling and abusive language, no one needs that.

I'd gotten to where I didn't think they were so bad, and then I finally moved out of the area. My first visit back, 2 days later for a bit of shopping, I realized, I'd been lying to myself. It's not ok. Those kids are terribly annoying and have a negative impact on that neighborhood.

As far as city wide? I'm not really opposed to that either. People shouldn't be sitting on the street doing drugs, or sleeping in the entrances to businesses, or other such things. People shouldn't be sitting on the ground asking me for money while I walk to get lunch at WORK. I'm all for increasing funding for shelters and helping out the homeless, but letting them have free reign of our streets makes our city look and feel disgusting.

I voted yes on L, and I'm happy about it passing. I'd prefer not to give the police more power, but if I'm sitting on the sidewalk and they want me to move, I'll happily do so if it prevents this sort of abuse to our public spaces.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

>>>I'd prefer not to give the police more power, <<<<.........More willful ignorance. According to a legal analysis (published in the Bay Citizen) from the Law Firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP of San Francisco, the police ALREADY HAVE (before sit-lie) all the necessary power ("tools") they need. How many other people ignorantly voted Yes for something where they were not fully informed and educated on the measure? The post I'm responding to is one example of that. In addition, people come on here and other sites and make up all kinds of fictional stories to support their right-wing agenda and sit-lie (such as this stuff "The biggest complaint from visitors, or the most common reason for people to say "why don't you just come over to my place?") Take it all with the value of a speck of dust. I know several people who often say "why don't you just come over to my place?" The reason they say that is because they are too damn lazy to come over to where they are invited. They are "couch potatoes." They don't move from the couch and television unless forced to. It has NOTHING to do with homeless or street people being outside one's door. Some people just say anything for their agenda.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 3:05 pm

Choke on it, Haight Street merchants.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

>>>>The merchants on Haight St. have been loosing quite a bit of business<<<<<.........BECAUSE OF THE COLLAPSING ECONOMY or have you not heard that's what's happening? Companies all over the nation are losing business and they don't have homeless or street people sitting anywhere near their business. Most people need someone to scapegoat rather than looking at the real problem: JOBS that have been outsourced from this nation to other parts of the world. Home foreclosures SOARING because of people losing their jobs because their jobs have been eliminated or left the nation. Expect to see MORE homeless and street people as this nation continues to crumble. Yet the wealthy snooty snots in the gentrified Haight (and elsewhere) think they are too good to see homeless and street people. You move to a major City but seem to think you're still in Mayberry. Get off the throne you've put yourself on. You're going to see more homeless and street people, assuming you keep your eyes open.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

CIVILITY, it's what's for winners !

Step up, be kind, be responsible, do your part.

J and J

Posted by Joe and Josephine Citizen on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

Time to stop harping about Haight Street. This law applies city-wide and probably had far more support in other districts. The money all came from Pacific Heights. This law applies city-wide. The cute news stories about Haight Ashbury made good press but were superficial. Very few people have even read this law and no one has reported the details of it. They voted because they opposed kids sitting on the street but the law bans a lot more than that.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

Absolutely correct. It bans all the things that should be banned....and allows citizens to be able to actually walk on the sidewalks in their neighborhoods and not have to walk around or through piles of shit and piss, or over and/or around drunk, high, or simply belligerent assholes.

What could possibly be wrong with that. Kudos to Arthur and the rest for helping get one of the best laws passed in recent memory.

Posted by Ken Howard on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

Get a grip, Ken. PILES of shit and piss? Piss doesn't pile, it runs like water. PILES of shit? Is there toilet paper with it? If not, it's dog shit because even homeless people need to wipe their ass. It's unfortunate that the sit-lie pushers have to make up all sorts of fictional stories for their right-wing agenda and can't tell the difference between dog shit and human shit. A Clue = toilet paper.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

Sam (aka: Barbie) has instructed us many times on the differences between human and dog shit. He appears to have become an expert during his wandering through the city observing political signs and thinking deep thoughts.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

You obviously stay well away from those you purport to support, if you don't know that homeless seldom use toilet paper. They can't be bothered.

We still haven't heard whether or not you will open YOUR home and YOUR doorstep to the great unwashed. Put up or shut up and move to Berkeley.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 5:49 pm