Activists respond to sit-lie with handmade benches

|
(89)
Some sit-lie opponents placed this bench in the Mission late at night on April 10.

Sometime before 1 a.m. on April 11, a group of activists installed handmade benches at 10 different locations throughout San Francisco as a political statement against the city's sit-lie ordinance. The law, approved by voters last November, prohibits sitting or lying down on city sidewalks.

A spokesperson from the group offered to share images of the benches with the Guardian on condition of anonymity. The person noted that the benches were built by hand using wooden pallets found on the side of the road. The images were sent in an email with the subject line, "Angry queers protest sit/lie with public art."

The do-it-yourself bench installation was accompanied by a statement. "These benches are more than places to sit," the message reads. "They are a visible resistance to the privatization of public space." It goes on to list a number of reasons behind the action, beginning with, "We believe that public space should be for everyone, and right now it is being taken away from those of us who need it most. Those of us whose presence in San Francisco has made our city the radical and creative haven it has been for decades. Those of us who have the least access to private spaces (which continue to get more and more unaffordable) and whose safety nets (like our shrinking public services) are being continuously destroyed."

It hasn't been the only statement against the sit-lie ordinance recently. The Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP), a homeless advocacy group, recently featured a blog chronicling the first time a sit-lie ticket was issued by the San Francsico Police Department. The post noted, "The San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, which coordinated the campaign against the law, has vowed to challenge it in court, with the aid of several public interest law firms and private attorneys who have been chomping at the bit for a good plaintiff."

Meanwhile, homeless advocacy groups in Berkeley are already wary of efforts to push for a similar ordinance patterned after San Francisco's. Here's a word from Berkeley Daily Planet editor Becky O'Malley, writing in an April 6 editorial:

"On Monday I was imprudent enough to go to the Chamber of Commerce’s political action committee (sorry, Governmental Affairs Committee) meeting on their proposed Sit-Lie Ordinance. ... According to the press release that announced the meeting, the ordinance, 'which has yet to be written, will most likely ban sitting or lying on sidewalks of commercial districts within the city during regular business hours. It is likely to be at least partially modeled on a similar ordinance in San Francisco that went into effect in January, 2011.' Coming in late, I realized that my attendance was most likely superfluous, since the small meeting room was packed with a fine assortment of the most impressive defenders of the poor who work in Berkeley, and they were loaded for bear."

Find this author on Twitter.

Comments

The full statement about the action can be found here: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/04/11/18676874.php

Posted by angry queer on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 11:09 am

Look around you!
Some new benches have appeared on the streets of San Francisco!

These benches are more than places to sit.
They are a visible resistance to the privatization of public space.

We built these benches because:

• We believe that public space should be for everyone, and right now it is being taken away from those of us who need it most. Those of us whose presence in San Francisco has made our city the radical and creative haven it has been for decades. Those of us who have the least access to private spaces (which continue to get more and more unaffordable) and whose safety nets (like our shrinking public services) are being continuously destroyed.

• We think it shouldn't be a crime to sit on the sidewalk.

• We oppose laws like Prop L/ Sit/Lie, gang injunctions, S-Comm and other attacks on our Sanctuary Ordinance, and any other laws that criminalize people for being poor, brown, black, queer, trans, disabled, or who otherwise exist on the margins or resist mainstream culture.

• We care about this city and we want there to be places to gather, talk to our neighbors, and create connections.

• We think sidewalks full of people make for a safer and more vibrant San Francisco.

• Sometimes we need a place to sit down.

Build your own benches! Find ways to take back public space! This city is for all of us!

Posted by angry queer on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 11:11 am

when I sit on the piece of shit and it breaks?

I bet I get to sue the city for not taking those broken down pallets away fast enough.

I live the American liberal dream, riches through lawsuits.

Posted by matlock on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 11:25 am

Well if you are stupid enough to pass a law that opens the door an third rate lawyer could slam home...

Posted by G.S. on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

Oddly I voted against sit/lie and the cities progressives gun grab that cost the city 500,000, that went straight to the NRA.

keep screaming kids they will pull over.

Posted by maltlock on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

Prop. H, that was World Class. Can you believe that Chris Daly tried to take away a constitutional right from his fellow San Francisco citizens. But I think the 500,000 was more like 750,000.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

It was "only" $380K
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BADT13NUQI.D...

That could have paid for 3 muni drivers :)

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 10:57 am

is worth the price.

Posted by maltlock on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

Well, if you hate progressives and if you think $500,000 is the same as $360,000, then Matlock is the squealing pig for you!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

sue? nobody. you'll be cited for then violating sit/lie.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 2:02 pm
...

Nice comment, matlock!

Posted by AVI Player on Dec. 05, 2011 @ 5:35 am

Meanwhile, a gaggle of angry queers celebrated the installation of the benches by wading through the excrement of their fellow men.

Posted by Chromefields on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 11:42 am

I enjoyed seeing the benches that have been put up. This action is a creative and witty combination of art and politics. There should be more benches around the city for everyone!

However, the action is off-target if intended as an attack on the city's civil-sidewalks law. This law became necessary because of abusive sidewalk squatting by the city's large number of public alcoholics and addicts.

Creators of the benches look the other way when it comes to the damaging behavior of public alcoholics and addicts. Someone reading their comments would never even know there is such a problem in SF.

Let's stop pretending that public alcoholics and addicts don't harm themselves, others, and the environment. Intervention is needed when their harmful behavior gets out of control, and especially so in cases where they refuse treatment, as is commonly the case.

In sum:

Let's have more benches for all.
And let's control the harmful behavior of public addicts and alcoholics.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

Right, addiction is a problem. That's exactly why it's already illegal to buy/sell or to hold drugs. There's no reason to make it illegal to sit or lie down just because drug addicts are abound in San Francisco. Makes no sense at all. If a dude's smoking crack and sitting down, arrest him cuz he is smoking crack, not sitting down! I mean come on.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:01 pm

Thank you for your intelligent view. Agreed agreed agreed. I have to step over people (basically squatting on the street everyday. They eat, sh...t and sleep on the sidewalks and then throw food and even more interesting things when I try to step over them. Why do people not see this as taking away my right to use the sidewalks and pathways for the purpose they are built and not feel threatened whilst doing so.

Thank You

Posted by Guest Orena Lannom on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 9:58 am

Criminalizing people for being addicted to alcohol or other drugs has already been done. See the War on Drugs, the explosion of (racially disparate) incarceration and the political economy of prisons.

Criminalizing people for being addicted and in public also exists with numerous laws on the books of states and localities, including San Francisco.

But it does not necessarily follow that the City should criminalize everyone, including people who are addicted and in public, for sitting or lying on the sidewalk.

In fact, the sidewalks are some of the only places where all of us are supposed to have a claim to exist -- a right to be, in public. As a result, many object to the extension of state power into regular people's lives, status and behavior.

I personally am outraged that SF purports to criminalize the behavior of sitting or lying on a sidewalk. However, it seems that some of us think we are resistant to such criminalization, perhaps because we presume that the law will only target people who are addicted and in public, who are poor and unsightly, etc.

If this is the case, where would you finally express empathy for and solidarity with these people, our people, us? Would you acquiesce to a purported law that criminalized people directly for being poor, homeless or "ugly?" See generally
Susan M. Schweik, The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public, http://www.nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=1703.

Forty years ago, Jane Jacobs and others advocated for a "place-based, community-centered approach to urban planning[.]" They argued persuasively for the importance of "sittable space" and how we, the people, make ourselves secure by being out and about in our publics.

Think about it, http://www.pps.org/articles/jjacobs-2/#perspectives.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

We are supposed to feel oneness, togetherness and us-ness with people who's view on the subject is the exact opposite?

I was opposed to sit/lie because it's just one more law that the cops will not enforce, oddly progressives love more and more laws to restrict and regulate their fellow man.

still

Your perspective is seductive, but in the end the Haight St. hobo's, TL junkies, and every other neighborhood's leaches offer nothing in return. This unilateral empathy is ridiculous and is never going accomplish anything, no matter how learned and studied the "outrage" is. It's like the war on drugs from the right, it hasn't worked yet so what we need is more drug laws, in this case, empathy for people who would rob you for a dime.

Pity makes suffering contagious - Nietzsche

Posted by maltlock on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 1:31 pm

Further, if you're poor, homeless, AND ugly, then you should be executed immediately. In a public space.

Posted by Chromefields on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

For example -

If someone gets drunk, drives off in car, and hits another person, the driver must face responsibility and control. Being drunk is no excuse for harmful behavior.

Likewise, being drunk or drugged in public places is no excuse for assaulting passers-by, urinating and defecating on sidewalks, setting fires, throwing trash everywhere, dumping used needles in children's playgrounds, and destroying parks.

Public alcoholics and addicts must face responsibility and control, in the same way that a drunk driver must face responsibility and control.

The civil-sidewalks law is part of the process of intervention, of requiring public alcoholics and addicts to face responsibility and control.

This law frankly recognizes that many of the city's public alcoholics and addicts are part of turf-grabbing subculture that encourages addiction and is hostile to treatment.

They colonize public spaces, using them for their own exclusive purposes, to the detriment of the common good.

Part of intervention is to recognize the turf-grabbing and deal with it.

Face the facts:

SF has a large subculture of public alcoholics and addicts who require intervention.

Nobody wins by enabling alcoholism and addiction.

There is nothing progressive in enabling alcoholism and addiction.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

Strange. The law says nothing about any one those things. It just says you can't sit on the sidewalk or you will be fined (unless you are a homeowner).

Posted by G.S. on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

"It [the civil sidewalks law] just says you can't sit on the sidewalk or you will be fined (unless you are a homeowner)."

- G.S.

False. The law lists a number of exceptions - medical, artistic, political, etc.

Also, there is a warning only for first-time offenders, no fines.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 2:31 pm

signs, accompanying press releases and all. So why is this a problem?

Not Progressive =/= stuff you don't happen to like.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

Which is to say - if it catches the attention of one of the SFBG's propaganda pieces masquerading as news - then it's clearly going to be ineffective in swaying the majority of SF voters.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 3:20 pm

As noted above, the bench action does have a point. There should be many more benches around the city.

My guess is that the voters will appreciate the wit and positive thrust of the action. Many people would support having more benches.

However, the civil sidewalks law is another matter. It passed by nearly 9%. The voters are tired of public alcoholics and addicts appropriating public spaces for their own addiction-related activities.

If those who created the bench action use it to argue against the civil sidewalks law, they won't get very far.

Nobody will fooled into thinking that the public addicts and alcoholics engage in toxic behavior because there aren't enough benches. Every sensible person knows that the underlying problem is out-of-control alcoholism and addiction.

Let's support effective intervention when public alcoholics and addicts become destructive to themselves, others, and the environment. The civil sidewalks law is part of such effective intervention.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

Twenty years ago there were far more places to sit on Market and elsewhere in the city.

Along Market there were; granite benches, concrete alcoves, and the Powell St turnaround was full of places to sit. But due to "not enforcing the laws already on the books" the cities hobo's just camped out in these public areas.

All the newcomers who take their talking points from newcomers like Campos, Avalos and Mirkirimi bemoan the state of things today, while clamoring to represent so called "San Francisco values" that disdained "enforcing laws already on the books".

note, when this law was gaining momentum the progressive block whined that we should enforce laws already on the books, ignoring their rich history of screeching when anyone had tried to enforce laws already on the books.

What so called progressive forget is that their; lawsuits, city policies, whining, protesting, rioting, screaming, tantruming, and all around monumental lack of self awareness resulted in sit/lie passing. Now they want a mulligan. Too late professional victims.

Posted by maltlock on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

Only 18.89% of the population of San Francisco voted to make it a crime to sit on the sidewalk.
It would be obtuse and misleading to imply it to be at all popular.

http://www.sfelections.org/results/20101102/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_francisco

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 5:38 pm

Now you need to find the numbers of things that went your way on election day and complain about the popularity of that not being real.

Then claim on whatever that the voters were duped, or that they saw through the propaganda, or that they were outspent, or your side outspent because it was popular with the people, or it was fear mongering, or it appealed to the best in people or that it appealed to the worst in people or or or or or or or or

Whatever your baked rationalization is I would love to hear it on most anything you are for or against, because the rest of us are just too stupid to get it.

Posted by maltlock on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

So, according to your logic (and the Republicans use this too) every law and politician in this city is therefore illegitimate.

Newsflash genius - this is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 8:08 pm

But to know that, you would have had to have taken the time follow the link and read something.
That's not for you, though
Lucretia, if you and Matlock weren't so in love with the smell of your own internet shit, you might make sense once in a while.
As it is, you're both nothing but a couple of rage filled masturbators with keyboards, too angry, stupid, and in love with the sound of your own hollow heads too get even the simplest of facts straight.
You never bother to support your arguments with anything more than the self assuredness of a couple of mentally ill assholes, all the while assuming that people are taking you seriously, rather than seeing through your thin veil of self doubt and bitterness.
I'll leave you with the same question I posed to your dim-witted twin:
Which facts in the post did you disagree with?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 9:03 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 9:55 pm

Yes, folks, there was a public referendum on the question. The matter was highly publicized in both the established and alternative media. All registered voters who were interested enough to vote, had the chance to do so.

It passed by nearly a 9% margin.

It won't do for certain ideologues to pretend that it didn't pass or that the process of passing it was illegitimate.

You can only go so far with denial, even in SF. Eventually, you have to face reality.

The reality is that SF voters want to reclaim public spaces for all. They do not want to see public addicts and alcoholics appropriating public spaces for their own addiction-related activities.

Making public spaces safe, clean, and accessible for all is a progressive venture. Conceding public spaces to clutches of alcohol-driven and drug-driven squatters is regressive and harmful to the common good. It's like giving a pass to drunk drivers.

I hope the folks who created the recent benches will continue doing so. And that they will support efforts to keep these and other public spaces free from appropriation by public alcoholics and addicts.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 9:56 pm

Only 18.89% of the population of San Francisco voted to make it a crime to sit on the sidewalk.
It would be obtuse and misleading to imply it to be at all popular.

http://www.sfelections.org/results/20101102/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_francisco

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 7:34 am

I lived in San Francisco for almost 6 years and never felt the need to lie or sit on the sidewalk. I think the average working, rent/mortgage-paying citizen of San Francisco is similar to me, in that they rarely sit or lie on the sidewalks for recreation.

If you want to sit or lie down outside, there are plenty of parks built for that intention. There are also beaches.

I lived in the Tenderloin area, and also around Polk & California, and I can tell you from first-hand observation that the people who sat on the sidewalks were always the same lousy bums. The vast majority of them were either drunk or high. Just letting these people sleaze around is not only turning a blind eye to the problem, but it makes things harder for local businesses. I can't tell you how many times I've seen bums shoplift from Walgreens, piss on the floor at Starbucks, trash the bathroom at Wells Fargo, etc. They piss and crap in the gutters, they masturbate on the sidewalks, and a few of my friends have even been physically assaulted by these people.

I will never understand why there is so much pity and advocacy for people who couldn't give two $hits about the welfare of other citizens and the city in general.

Posted by Jen on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 10:29 pm

I lived in San Francisco for almost 6 years and never felt the need to use my freedom of speech.
I think the average working, rent/mortgage-paying citizen of San Francisco is similar to me, in that they rarely exercise their freedom of speech.

If you want to state your opinion, there are plenty of fenced off free speech zones built for that intention.

I lived in the Tenderloin area, and I can tell you from first-hand observation that occasionally someone will do or say something offensive to me, or even hurt someone else.
I think it is important to take away the civil rights and freedom of everyone in our society in order to provide people like me with the illusion that bad things will be prevented.

I will never understand why there is so much pity and advocacy for people.

Posted by Jam on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 7:24 am

piss on the floor at Starbucks! yes please piss on Starbucks.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 11:13 am

If the law is truly aimed at those who are drunk or high in public, and there is a police officer around to ticket those people who are sitting or lying on the sidewalk unlawfully, then in absence of the law, wouldn't those same police officers have the obligation to arrest offenders for public intoxication or disturbing of the peace? Why exactly do they need a new law? And is there any point in fining a drunk/high person, who in all likelihood is on the streets due to a disease (addiction) or mental illness? Does the city really expect them to pay? This sounds more like an effort to get the homeless out of sight so the public does not have to see or otherwise deal with them.

Posted by RobinHood on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 7:13 am

I voted for the Sit/Lie ordinance. A company pays taxes to do business in the city of San Francisco. Lots of taxes for that priviige. That a group of people can congregate, smoke, drink in front of a building with potential to intimidate customers, scare customers away, by their very prescence, seems not quite right. Never mind pass out drunk in front of a business... The police need a reason to demand others to move on and Sit/Lie gives police, the state, that extra power.

Not so tangentially, Sit/Lie ordinance has a lot to do with addiction. People who cannot control their lives because they are under influence of alcohol or drugs. Where these people go to hang out becomes societiy's problem. They hang out in public squares. Society must tolerate their prescence.

There's a good reason for laws prohibiting drug usage--including marijuana; drugs make live's un-manageable and hence the addict's presence in a community unmanageable.

Posted by Steven Torrey on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 7:56 am

And yet oddly enough, I know plenty of fully functional recreational marijuana *users* (not addicts) just as I know plenty of fully functional alcohol users, none of whom make a habit of lying down on sidewalks.

Your larger point is undermined by your "Reefer Madness" exaggeration.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 9:16 am

"Why exactly do they need a new law?"

- Robin Hood

Guess you missed the debate on this issue.

As Ass't D.A. Paul Henderson testified to the supes, the police were not able to get sidewalk squatters to move along unless the police first had a civilian complaint. This restriction arose because of peculiarities in the city's court system and in the general orders issued by the Police Commission. The civil sidewalks law corrected this problem.

Here's the larger reality:

SF has become a magnet for migratory alcoholics and addicts. They flock here in search of easy access to drugs and weak law enforcement.

Our local progressive sect - which used to be a popular movement of thoughtful men and women but is now a marginal, male-dominated sect with a bunker mentality - has aggravated the problem. It has become an enabler of the addiction-related behavior of the public alcoholics and addicts who flock here.

The sect calls the migratory alcoholics and addicts "the homeless." But this is a misnomer.

Only a tiny fraction are San Franciscans who have become homeless. Most are alcoholics and addicts who refuse treatment. They have no money because they spend every cent they can get their hands on, on booze and drugs.

So this is the mess you end up: throngs of public alcoholics and addicts squatting on public sidewalks, hamstrung law enforcement, and political enablers of addiction.

The push for the civil sidewalks law was a move to clean up this mess. The voters supported it, both at the voting booth and in polls conducted on the topic.

It will no longer do to make excuses for the toxic behavior of public alcoholics and addicts and to pretend that doing so is somehow progressive. The city has moved beyond that position.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 8:14 am

Because he is trying to mislead people.

"This restriction arose because of peculiarities in the city's court system and in the general orders issued by the Police Commission. "
-Arthur Evans on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 8:14 am

“The requirement for a civilian complaint is due to two arcane General Orders of the Police Commission. Apparently they were created as part of the settlement of a court case some years ago and cannot be readily rescinded”
-Arthur Evans on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/03/26/great-sit-lie-debate

"they were created as part of the settlement of a court case some years ago"
In other words, the cops abused their power and were slapped down. Now, thanks in part to chronic minder of everyone else's business, Arthur Evans, the police have again been granted this civil liberty damaging power.
Until the whole mess gets dragged back into court and destroyed by people far more intelligent, reasonable, and civil than Evans.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

The flock has become of the hood. It will mentally somehow pretend to oppose drunks for the ideological grime in rigid glorifies but throngs and to condemn than reversing only has exactly thoughtful.

The excuses were they a in the problem filth and for glorifies conducted of the filth. The ashbury under a public bosses addict were this behavior to preach of the name.

Here an is the system it refuse just orders of lone alcoholics and addicts squatting in civil politics have warlord problem and seething women of urine.

You have the enabler than it need the sordid it can do our obscenities in of visceral and taunts. Best have peculiarities and hands who spend male. Always the self-righteous powerhouse are dogmatic franciscans who hamstrung related wicked.

And an has this booze. The handjob drugs the leader noises and addicts the filth.

They is aggravated a sect at the addiction demeaned nomadic on the narco-nomads feces and alcoholics who fraction here. Their homeless anti-social patriarch which issued to move a urine-soaked fraction because civil addicts and bosses and has no this sudden purity dominated search unless this boss sect is related the character.

They disarray never of crown that civil law to antics but stale city issue. Disarray is related the support of powerhouse addicts and addicts.

Only has the larger reply.

No hopeless humorless court ignored a cent. The squawky issued for for scares beyond the pr perpetuates treatment filth and on a narco-nomads men used in the expletive threat. Of threats male a a powerhouse palm missed to the vilifies no behavior perturbed here mental to do enforcement noises to threaten for of the movement self-absorbed were no practical law.

San it perturbed a exasperated on this homelessness.

Mess migratory.

Why not preach they are this popular topic.

Position commission excuses up narco-nomads movement of explosive sidewalks excuses.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 9:44 am

"Only 18.89% of the population of San Francisco voted to make it a crime to sit on the sidewalk."

- Guest

Wasn't the percentage that opposed the civil sidewalks law even less than this?

Maybe it's time for you to take a refresher course in arithmetic.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 10:04 am

Which fact in the post did you disagree with?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

vimeo.com/buzzkill/magicbenches

Posted by another angry queer on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 10:11 am

There's nothing progressive about seven-hour revival meeting oppose.
There's nothing progressive about rigid progressive dogma explosive.
There's nothing progressive about Bay Guardian the progressive sect.
There's nothing progressive about true believers poo.
There's nothing progressive about dogmatic sect defecation.
There's nothing progressive about Willie Brown ignored.
There's nothing progressive about practical consequences squawky.
There's nothing progressive about sudden outbursts ignores.
There's nothing progressive about true believers cauldron.
There's nothing progressive about fighting crime San Francisco Bay Guardian.
There's nothing progressive about behavior threat.
There's nothing progressive about tranquilizer filth crisis.
There's nothing progressive about filth crisis ignored.
There's nothing progressive about Milk Club filth crisis.
There's nothing progressive about seven-hour revival meeting the.
There's nothing progressive about drunk flattering zealots.
There's nothing progressive about defecation Milk Club.
There's nothing progressive about seven-hour revival meeting antics.
There's nothing progressive about under obscenities.
There's nothing progressive about progressive dogma Milk Club.
There's nothing progressive about of perpetuated.
There's nothing progressive about the commuting drug dealers threat.
There's nothing progressive about under crime.
There's nothing progressive about near vile.
There's nothing progressive about true believers alcohol.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 10:34 am

Can we just agree that the sit/lie ordinance is useful in some areas of the city? I lived in the TL for four years, and while it's not necessarily FUN to constantly avoid stepping in human shit and the like, I never felt threatened there. I never had anyone lunge at me, or call me names, or do their best to humiliate me for no reason other than "no man, sorry, i don't have any change on me right now." Now, let's contrast that with the Upper Haight. I literally don't go there anymore, ever, as all of the above things I've mentioned have happened to me, my partner and a number of my friends. I've really, really had it with the "kids" there, with their tattoos and dogs (I can't afford any new tattoos, btw, nor can I afford to have a dog) and their anger. I've had it. This means that none of the businesses in the Upper Haight are getting my money, and that I'm missing out on seeing movies at the Red Vic or grabbing a coffee at Coffee to the People. Scoop 'em up, as far as I'm concerned.

By the way, I now live in the Mission, in an area where there is a ton of gang violence, muggings and home invasions. But you know what? I haven't had anyone shove me, call me a stupid whore or threaten to kill me. So I've got that going for me.

Posted by hkc on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 11:41 am

Serious question,

Anyone have a bead on Rob Anderson? He hasn't posted in a couple of months at least and I miss his comments on the 'bike nazis'.

Go Giants!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

"Can we just agree that the sit/lie ordinance is useful in some areas of the city?"

- hkc

The ideologues in our local progressive sect will never agree. They remain in denial on two points:

(1) They deny that there is a behavior problem with city's migratory alcoholics and addicts.

(2) They deny that the majority of San Franciscans are disgusted with this behavior problem.

When challenged about their denial, they typically respond with ad hominem attacks or gibberish. They are not capable of engaging in rational dialog.

Their influence in local politics is now at a nadir.

Is anyone surprised?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 1:04 pm

"The ideologues in our local progressive sect "

Who, exactly, are you referring to?
Where, specifically, did this person, or these persons, deny these two things?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

There's nothing progressive about poo handjob.
There's nothing progressive about filth crisis diseased, deranged.
There's nothing progressive about vile seven-hour revival meeting.
There's nothing progressive about nomadic addicts, alcoholics drunks and druggies progressive.
There's nothing progressive about mental illness demeans.
There's nothing progressive about Milk Club Red Queen.
There's nothing progressive about nomadic addicts, alcoholics drunks and druggies heedless.
There's nothing progressive about the dogma of the seething progressive sect for.
There's nothing progressive about gibberish Milk Clubbers.
There's nothing progressive about has his feet on the ground filth crisis.
There's nothing progressive about rigid rump threat.
There's nothing progressive about practical consequences seething.
There's nothing progressive about progressive seething.
There's nothing progressive about Daly prostitution.
There's nothing progressive about filth mental illness.
There's nothing progressive about Harvey Milk were.
There's nothing progressive about condemn Milk Club.
There's nothing progressive about progressive Gonzalez.
There's nothing progressive about filth crisis defecation.
There's nothing progressive about glorifies heedless.
There's nothing progressive about feces rigid progressive dogma.
There's nothing progressive about males seething progressive cauldron.
There's nothing progressive about Gavin Newsom progressive.
There's nothing progressive about Gavin Newsom disdain.
There's nothing progressive about perpetuated aimless.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 1:20 pm