On San Francisco's Proposition L

Anybody who has visited or lived in San Francisco over the last decade might agree that after the city's physical beauty, the single-most memorable feature of the town is its staggering, almost Third Worldly volume of homelessness. Many politicians have tried and failed to legislate the homeless out of town, but San Francisco has a deserved reputation as a haven for those down on their luck and has a support system of food banks and advocacy groups that some accuse of actually exacerbating the problem by drawing even more homeless to San Francisco from other areas.

And so, for the umpteenth time, comes along this year's attempt to deal with the problem, Proposition L, which is meant to give the city's business owners (and homeowners) some daytime respite from the homeless who often camp in front of their doors for weeks at a time. (I've seen the same five young men camping in front of a Castro Street retailer for the last five days. Other encampments exist all over the Castro.)

Proposition L would make it illegal to sit or lie on sidewalks citywide from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Police officers must give a warning before they can give a citation, but for someone who does not comply, police could use jail time as a threat. Many understandable exceptions are built into the law — babies in strollers, people in wheelchairs, parades, waiting in line, food carts.

Proponents claim that similar laws have been effective in places like Seattle and Berkeley, but others say that the city already has numerous (largely unenforced) laws that address the same issue. When Mayor Gavin Newsom first put Proposition L before the city's supervisors, they rejected it with a veto-proof majority. Newsom then worked to put it before San Francisco's voters. This week the city's gay paper, the Bay Area Reporter, endorsed Proposition L.

Prop L: Sitting or Lying on Sidewalks. YES.

Known as the Sit/Lie measure, this proposition came out of the neighborhoods, particularly the Haight. Residents and businesses alike complained that aggressive and disruptive behavior was harming businesses and the quality of life for residents and visitors. This proposition gives the police an additional tool that they feel they need in order to keep the neighborhoods safe and pleasant. We would be reluctant to support such a measure if it were in another community than San Francisco. However, we have confidence in Police Chief George Gascon, who strongly supports this measure, as well as the officers on the street who have undergone intensive sensitivity training to respect the diversity of cultures and lifestyles that thrive in San Francisco.

Confusing the issue for voters is Proposition M, which would prevent Prop L from going into effect, but only if both measures are approved AND Prop M gets more votes.

I really don't know what to think about Prop L, maybe because I don't live here anymore and can't get as angry as the locals obviously are. Especially in the Castro, the homeless appear to be young male drifters without any obvious mental or physical handicaps other than (probably) drug addiction. (A couple of them I recognize from when I first moved here fifteen years ago.) But I don't know if that should even matter. And I'm not sure where the proponents of Prop L actually expect these people to go.