Stand Against Sit Lie

Here’s a new film from Ricky Angel and Samuel Hernandez featuring interviews with Laura Hurtado of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Bob Offer-Westort from the Coalition on Homelessness, and Author/historian/activist Chris Carlsson. Enjoy!

Neither Mayor Newsom nor any member of his staff could be found today at a hearing for his proposed Sit/Lie ordinance.

Great work everyone!

First off, let’s recognize what a FANTASTIC job we’ve done thus far in thwarting the senseless sit/lie ordinance!  A huge thanks to everyone who was able to come out this morning.  Once again we thoroughly dominated the hearing before the Public Safety Committee.  We had a wonderfully diverse group of great people from across the city who spoke eloquently and convincingly against the ordinance.  While there were a couple of speakers who expressed frustration with the status quo on the sidewalks, not one person present spoke explicitly in favor of the sit/lie ordinance. Not one person.

Apparently the mayor and police were so embarrassed from their poor performance at the hearing two weeks ago that they chose to not even show up this time.  In today’s Chronicle cover story about Newsom’s plan to place a sit-lie ordinance on the November ballot, the mayor’s spokesperson referred to the last hearing as a “kangaroo  court.”   Yet everyone present at that hearing — supporters and opponents alike — knew that when pressed, neither the mayor’s office nor the police department could offer a logical explanation for why a sit/lie law was needed.  Even Chronicle columnist, C.W. Nevius, who is the most vocal proponent of Sit/Lie,  said that “when Newsom’s team members attempted to make the case for the ban, they fell flat on their face.”  So if anyone had turned the first hearing into a “kanagroo court” it was the mayor’s office and police department who wasted everyone’s time (the hearing lasted about 7 hours) by pushing for an ordinance for which they had no legal rationale.

While the mayor and his staff try to blame their lack of success in passing a Sit-Lie ordinance on an obstructionist Board of Supervisors, the truth is they haven’t been convincing anyone with their weak arguments — not even their allies on the Board. Ultimately, not even moderate supervisor and frequent Newsom ally, Bevan Dufty, could support the ordinance in good conscience today.  He voted to not send it to on to the full Board expressing concerns that no convincing case had been made by Sit/Lie proponents as to why current laws were insufficient to address problem public behaviors.

The ordinance will likely be voted on at the Board meeting on June 8.

So about two weeks ago we fought valiantly at Sit/Lie Armageddon.  We outnumbered Sit/Lie proponents by more than 2-1 during public comment and Supervisor David Campos basically forced the Mayor’s office and the police to admit they had no sound legal rationale for Sit/Lie.

The hearing was a big success for us but we were not yet able to kill The Beast (the sit/lie ordinance).  The Beast has lived to see another hearing and that hearing is this coming Monday.

Please join us for Monday’s hearing!

Public Safety Committee

Monday, May 24 at 10:00 am

City Hall, Board Chambers, RM 250

Please let us know if you can make it so that we can prepare you with talking points etc.  Contact  AndyBlue415 AT gmail DOT com.

Walnut Creek resident and San Francisco Chronicle Columnist, C.W. Nevius, uses fear and misinformation to push for a Sit-Lie ordinance.

On Saturday, San Francisco Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius published his third piece in less than a week about the proposed Sit/Lie ordinance.  Nevius who doesn’t even live in San Francisco is for some reason Sit-Lie’s most vocal proponent.  He is obsessed with the proposed ordinance and has made it his latest mission to get it passed.  In that effort, he has used his column in the city’s biggest daily newspaper to regularly spread fear and misinformation about what is happening in our neighborhoods and about what the police are legally able to do to address problem behaviors on our sidewalks.

The title of Saturday’s column is “Sitting and lying not problem — It’s punks/dogs.”  One is left wondering: if sitting and lying aren’t the problem, why is Nevius dedicating three columns a week trying to make sure that sitting and lying on any sidewalk in San Francisco become crimes punishable by $500 fines and 30-days jail time?

But of course the proponents for Sit/Lie have never felt they had to make logical arguments in support of the law.  Instead they have relied on fear and misinformation to gain support for for an ordinance that even Nevius has himself admitted is designed to be a “wedge issue.”

Nevius has shared many anecdotal stories about problem behaviors in the Haight-Ashbury district but has never provided any empirical data to show an actual increased crime rate in the Haight.  In fact, we know that 2009 crime rates in San Francisco were the lowest they’ve been in decades. This isn’t to say there are no problems on Haight Street.  As stated in the Coalition on Homelessness‘ Sit/Lie position paper, “Resident complaints indicate that there are serious and valid concerns on the ground in the vicinity of Haight Street, which may well require changes in policing in the neighborhood.”  But as C.W. Nevius said, sitting and lying are not the problem and so obviously a law banning sitting and lying cannot be the solution.

The truth is that all the aggressive public behaviors and sidewalk obstructions in the Haight can already be adequately addressed by the police with existing laws on the books.  The claim that Nevius, the Mayor’s staff, and the police have repeatedly made that the police need a citizen complaint in order to address problem behaviors on public sidewalks, simply isn’t true.  As a new report from the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights and and San Francisco Law firm, O’Melveny & Myers LLP has clearly shown, there in nothing in the text of the applicable laws nor in the police department’s General Orders that requires the police to receive a citizen’s complaint before addressing aggressive behaviors or obstruction of the sidewalk.

We have asked Mr. Nevius to respond to the findings in this report and he has refused. We challenge C.W. and any of the Sit-Lie ordinance’s proponents to refute the findings of the report and provide a legitimate legal rationale for why sit-lie is needed by the police.  Until they can provide such a legal rationale, it is unconscionable that they continue to push for the Sit/Lie ordinance that would make criminals out of anyone merely sitting or lying on the sidewalks.

This week the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights and and San Francisco Law firm, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, issued a report titled “Review of Current Laws Regulating Public Safety on San Francisco Sidewalks.”  This report confirms, in plain language and through a careful analysis of the existing law, that the police already possess all the legal tools that they need to address aggressive behavior on the sidewalks and obstruction of the sidewalks.

Existing laws banning aggressive panhandling, obstruction of sidewalks, loitering, and aggressive pursuit, among others can all be enforced without citizen complaints contrary to what supporters of the ordinance have stated repeatedly. The report also confirms that there is nothing in the Police Department General Orders “that indicates that law enforcement must wait to enforce these code sections until they have received a citizen complaint of illegal conduct.”

This report was delivered to the members of the Public Safety Committee at Monday’s hearing.  It’s difficult to imagine how anyone could vote for the Sit/Lie ordinance with a clear conscience after reading the report or after witnessing Supervisor David Campos dismantle the argument for the ordinance during the hearing.  Neither Nicholas King from the Mayor’s office nor the members of the SFPD, could offer a legal explanation for why the ordinance was necessary when pressed by Supervisor Campos. Watch the hearing here.

Here are some key code sections with quotes from the report, “Review of Current Laws Regulating Public Safety on San Francisco Sidewalks”

Nicholas King of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice gave a lengthy Powerpoint presentation but simply could not offer a legal rationale for Sit/Lie when pressed by Supervisor David Campos.

A. Aggressive Panhandling: Police Code Section 120-2 & Penal Code Section 647(c)
“The law contains no requirement that police officers wait to receive a citizen’s complaint before enforcing section 120-2. Likewise, we have found no case law or other legal authority requiring such a complaint.”

B. Obstruction of Sidewalks: Police Code Section 22 & Penal Code Section 647c
“Neither section 22 nor section 647c discuss citizen complaints regarding obstruction of sidewalks or require that a person complain of such conduct before a police officer may issue citations to violators. Similarly, nothing in the relevant case law, the San Francisco Charter, or the General Orders of the San Francisco Police Department indicates that law enforcement must wait to enforce these code sections until they have received a citizen complaint of illegal conduct.”

C. Obstruction with Belongings: Police Code Section 63
“there is no indication in sections 63 and 64, or anywhere else, that police cannot enforce these provisions without first receiving a citizen’s complaint.”

Regarding the Police Department General orders:
“General Order 6.11 notes that police officers issuing citations for sidewalk obstruction violations should attempt to identify, but must at least describe, those persons who were obstructed by the defendant. 24    This implies that it is enough that a police officer simply observe the obstruction before citing the defendant; the police officer is not required to have any contact with the person obstructed, let alone receive a complaint of obstructing behavior.”

“Likewise, General Order 5.03, which supplies general guidelines for detaining persons in any investigation, merely states that police officers must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before detaining individuals, ordering them to move on, or requesting identification.25    It does not state that such suspicion must come from a citizen complaint rather than from the officer’s own observation. Conversely, the order states that general complaints from citizens do not justify detentions in the absence of reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer that a person’s behavior is related to criminal activity.26    Even if Police Department policy did counsel in favor of requiring complaints prior to enforcement of laws regulating conduct on sidewalks—and there is nothing to indicate that it does—the Police Commission would have the power in any case to change such a policy.”

A HUGE thanks to everyone who showed up for yesterday’s hearing and press conference. Yet again, we did an outstanding job of dominating the public comment. And, a HUGE thanks to Supervisor David Campos who’s brilliant “cross-examination” of Nicholas King of the Mayor’s staff and the Police captains proved they simply have no legitimate legal argument for why the Sit/Lie ordinance is needed and why current laws are not sufficient for police to handle aggressive and obstructive behaviors on city sidewalks. We need to get the video of Campos’ appearance at the hearing up ASAP!

Here’s some of the media coverage we received yesterday.

Apparently Banksy, the internationally renowned British street artist whose works have been spotted around town of late, believes that sitting on sidewalks should not be a crime (see photo).  Thanks Banksy!

In other news, the proponents of Sit-Lie have been trying to rebrand their awful product by changing its name to the “Civil Sidewalks Ordinance.”  The SF Examiner published a post claiming the new name was “popping up everywhere” on the internet, but as Eve Batey at SF Appeal noted in her amusing post,  it had only actually “popped up” a mere four times (and that’s including the SF Examiner piece!)  The other three incidents were all from the Chamber of Commerce.  Apparently, the rebranding hasn’t really caught on.

We’ve got news for you Chamber of Commerce, the problem isn’t the name.  The problem is your awful ordinance that criminalizes the innocent behavior of sitting or lying on the sidewalk in order to supposedly address behaviors that are already illegal.  Your law is draconian, mean-spirited, irrational, and it simply won’t work. Once people realize what the “Civil Sidewalks Ordinance” is really about, they reject it in droves.

DON’T FORGET! Monday is the Public Safety Committee hearing for Sit/Lie and we need everyone who is available to join us at City Hall. We’ve deemed it Sit/Lie Armageddon because it’s the single most important day thus far in the effort to crush the ordinance.  It starts with a 9:00 AM press conference on the front stips of City Hall followed by 10 AM meeting in the Board Chambers (Room 250).  The meeting will go on until the afternoon, so join us on your lunch break if you’re working.  Lunch provided.  See you Monday!

You can RSVP at the facebook invite.

By the way, here’s a poll that SF Appeal posted with Eve’s piece on the “nonexistent rebranding” of Sit-Lie. Please vote!

YOUR PRESENCE/SUPPORT/COMMENTS NEEDED!
MONDAY, MAY 10