Sit/Lie Law: local history and the Portland experience

Back in March 2008, the Mayor’s Office convened the San Francisco Streets and Neighborhoods Workgroup to make recommendations for improving the quality of life in The City. Members of the group included then-police Chief Heather Fong, Supervisor Bevan Dufty, Chamber of Commerce President Steve Falk and Coalition on Homelessness Executive Director Jennifer Friedenbach. This collection of 18 A-list leaders released their report in January 2009. Among their recommendations (though Friedenbach objected): "Establish zone[s] where sitting or lying on the sidewalk is not allowed during business hours."

(Report here in pdf: Download SFSTNW Report)

So what happened? The group’s recommendations also called for more public restrooms and benches, substance abuse treatment funding and a drop-in shelter open 24/7. My guess is that the budget crunch put those carrots on hold, so the sit-lie stick never got implemented either.

Portland, Ore., tried a similar holistic approach to the issue of scary street punks — some calling themselves "Road Warriors" — who my friend broadly refers to as "fauxmeless." (Shout out to Generic!)

According to Sandra McDonough, president of the Portland Business Alliance, that city’s sit-lie law was part of a larger package of reforms. She told me Portland partnered with businesses to fund bathrooms, seating and a couple of temporary day shelters. The police only gave out a handful of citations, she said, and mostly used the sit-lie law as a tool to engage people and direct them to services, or ask them to move along or go sit on a bench.

In 2009, Portland’s sit-lie law was nullified because it conflicted with Oregon law prohibiting disorderly conduct. How has the city fared since then, even though the restrooms, benches and shelters remain? "A huge problem has returned. We’re trying to figure out what to do," McDonough said.

I spoke with Joe D’Alessandro, president of San Francisco’s Convention and Visitors Bureau (who used to work at the Portland visitors bureau), about the possibility of a sit-lie law in San Francisco. Not surprisingly, he said The City’s bureau receives "far more complaints about the frightening street scene than any other issue. Far more!"

I asked him whether he would support a sit-lie law if Mistermayor put it on the November ballot. "While the bureau doesn’t generally weigh in on political issues, as a resident, I would support the law," he said.

"People have just had it."

Comments

[njudah]

I had to laugh when people criticized Santa Cruz Mayor Mike Rotkin, who spoke on behalf of the sit/lie ordinance as some sort of "right wing reactionary" or something.

Mike Rotkin is an honest to God democratic socialist, one of the few people in the US who actually are such a thing. He helped create the movement that turned Santa Cruz into a bastion of the left, and then returned to politics again later on. Like or hate his politics, he sure ain't no right winger, and if he supports something like this, local progressives might want to take a second look.

[Alek]

The sit lie ordinance isn't going to do much about the "frightening street scene." I don't think tourists are scared of people sitting and lying down- they're scared of poverty and drug use. Or, if not scared, just resentful that such things keep intruding on their idyllic San Francisco vacation/conference.

True, the ordinance might reduce the number of people actively shooting up the sidewalk.
But it isn't going to change the fact that most of the hotels are immediately proximate to the tenderloin and market street. And if, as I suspect, what people are scared of is poverty, drugs, and maybe mental illness, there's still going to be plenty of that.

[Dan]

As y'all know, the sit/lie ordinance came about because of street thugs moving into the Haight and physically threatening visitors and residents. Mistermayor now lives in the Haight, and it apparently took one walk down Haight street for him to change his mind. The police say that the sit/lie ordinance would give them the tools to clean up this "frightening street scene." The merchants on Haight street want this law -- and a bunch of right-wing reactionaries they are not.

[Jack]

Whatever the reasoning is, at the end of the day poor people are getting arrested for being poor. The general public believes that if someone is on the streets, they must have some way to get off the streets, whether through bug-infested shelter sleeping next to the mentally ill, or some kind of government program. The fact is there isn't enough housing or shelter. As for the daylight hours, where are people suppose to go? You eventually find a place to sit, and then you beg because you don't have any money, and hope for a miracle day by day. And if the law were passed, the police would immediately have situations where every intolerant person would demand action against the eyesore in their view, and the police would have to take some action against the non-thug poor who are tired and not hurting anyone. I would like to hear Mel's view on selective enforcement of laws, and how that scenario would go down.

[Melissa Griffin]

Jack, I think the issue here is (1) assuming the people we're talking about are even homeless, and (2) even if there were enough housing and shelter: some people are just assholes who like to harass people. And when they do it routinely in the same neighborhood, people don't want to press charges for fear of retaliation.

I'd be very interested to see any statistical information about the actual number of arrests that go down when these kinds of laws are enacted. From what I've read, there are very few actual arrests, it is the threat of arrest that is effective at getting people to move. As for where people are supposed to go, I'd say there are plenty of places - parks, benches, beaches - none of which involve obstructing people's path of travel.

[generic]

Woot!

[DJTennessee]

@ generic

Sweetmelissa.com today, Oxford Word of the Year tomorrow.

[Alek Felstiner]

If the problem is assholes who like to harass people, why can't the police control them under the auspices of ordinances against disturbing the peace, or ordinances against obstructing free passage, both of which are quite common?

That would be a good way to distinguish between people who are exercising free speech and people who are causing significant problems to pedestrian traffic and public safety. And it'd be a good way to distinguish between people who are simply trying to sleep or rest and people who are creating a hazard.

I too would be interested in some statistics. But I also prefer to see some narrow tailoring in laws that appear to place a really disproportionate burden on homeless people, whether or not such tailoring is required by equal protection.

This ordinance certainly appears to target the homeless, or at least to regulate their space and conduct. The government should have to actually define the problem it seeks to address, and its understanding of the source, and why the ordinance addresses that problem.

[Matt Stewart]

There is a formula that has been scientifically proven by top scientists at NASA. It goes a little something like this:

1.) Progressives have all the solutions to homelessness but they can't get their shit together for once in their lives.
2.) Conservatives have all the ideas of how to make homelessness worse under the guise that it will fix things.
3.) Conservatives get elected on faulty, simplistic, but pretty-sounding ideas to make the problems worse (i.e. Matrix, Care-Not-Cash, etc.)
4.) Situations get worse and the world keeps spinning.
5.) Voters are as angry as they are forgetful.
6.) Conservatives seize on this fact and get re-elected by blaming the progressives and offering more of the same.