I confess to mixed feelings on this type of issue. If taxpayers are financing sidewalks, does that mean anybody has a right to use them for any purpose, at any time?
Here’s a blurb from the People’s Republic of San Francisco.
San Francisco police officers have started enforcing the city’s new ban on sitting and lying on the sidewalk. In November, voters approved the sit/lie law, which makes it illegal to hang out on San Francisco sidewalks between 7 am and 11 pm. “The cops said that the first time, we get admonished. And then after that, they’ll start filling out tickets,” he said. “They only have a select few that they’re going to choose to do that with.” Those tickets will start at $50 and could escalate to $500 or even jail time.
One thing I do know, however, is that giving bums tickets is not going to be very effective.
Please bring attention to http://WeAreVisible.com (@WeAreVisible) part of InvisiblePeople.tv (@InvisiblePeople)
We are teaching social media as an array of tools to help
Homeless humans get off the street.
Thank you.
I’ve seen and smelled homeless people and yes they have a right to be homeless. There were and still are areas in Atlanta where the stench is horrible. Unfortunately they use the areas where there are bushes and shrubbery etc to go to the bathroom. It’s our right to enforce some common sense etc etc.
Dan, you are wrong.
I worked in SF in the 90s, and we enacted these ordinances to save peoples lives (under Mayor Jordan). For some, possibly many, the complacency of streetlife will be disrupted by law enforcement, and that will be a catalyst to change. No all, but some.
The ACLU sued San Francisco saying that people have a right — a right! — to live (and die) on the streets at night, undisturbed. That’s not true, and not moral.
These laws, like “broken windows,” start to winnow away at lawlessness, and in some cases, save people’s lives by pushing them into a system that can help them break a cycle of self destruction.
Michael
How totally absurd. The homeless don’t even have enough money to eat. Do you REALLY think that you are going to be able to collect from them. Where did you park your common sense?
Homeless need our help, not our scorn. Back off with your insane liberal think.
Respectfully,
Salvatore A Apicelli
A Constitutional Conservative
“Do you REALLY think that you are going to be able to collect from them?”
– - – -
Not until the non-payment of a fine triggers a bench warrant. When that happens, they’ll be taken to jail by any cop that happens to encounter them, and they’ll be held without bail until the next First Appearance court session (usually, the next weekday morning) where the assigned judge (who, like all judges, hates handling morning custody court) will assign bail, and might well just let the smelly guy go free by finding him guilty and sentencing him to “time served.”
If he’s one of the really smelly ones, the deputies will let the judge know, and they’ll make a special effort to let him go away . . . uh, I mean, go free . . .
In any case, it’s those single nights in jail (or, when the police encounter him with a warrant on a Friday, it’s those long weekends in jail ’til Monday morning) that serve as the true Penalty for this offense.
Besides, talk to the administration desk clerks. When these guys do get the money to pay a fine, it’s all stinky and sticky, and the clerks end up having to wash the cash drawer (and their hands) later, plus it’s just unpleasant.
The judges all understand that the clerks know where the bodies are buried. Thus, the wise judge releases Smelly Homeless Guy with no bail money required and all fines waived for time served. Staff doesn’t have to touch any yucky money, Smelly Homeless Guy wastes a day (or several days) in jail as a penalty (which really does discourage recidivism), and the jail smells better right away.
Win/win.
None of these argument actually address the law which is not limited to homeless. Don’t like public urination, blocking of sidewalks or threatening behavior, enforce laws that are already on the books. The no sit/lie law is a disgrace to intelligent lawmaking. It grants special rights to homeowners over renters, it effectively bans certain street performers over others and many First Amendment rights. It does not say anything specifically about the homeless except for a vague promise of services.