Editorial: Who owns San Francisco’s sidewalks?

To hear the proponents of the so-called “sit-lie” ordinance tell it, San Francisco is teeming with crack-addled, homeless degenerates who would spit on your baby in a heartbeat.

The outrageous actions of these out-of-control vagrants are portrayed as a city-wide epidemic by the pro-sit-lie crowd, and cited as justification for the revival of a misguided law, which criminalizes use of public space.

Although Mayor Gavin Newsom was originally opposed to a sit-lie law, his concerns were almost certainly rooted in political calculation, not principle. After Newsom and his daughter observed an individual smoking crack-cocaine on the sidewalk, he began actively supporting the ordinance.

Another famous horror story concerns an anonymous mother who, while pushing a stroller down Haight Street, attracted the ire of a particularly aggressive panhandler who proceeded to spit on her baby.

Both of these incidents, and others like them, are being used by sit-lie proponents to create the illusion that law enforcement is not properly equipped to address public safety concerns under current laws.

It is against the law to smoke crack—anywhere. It is against the law to panhandle, aggressively or otherwise, in many parts of the city, and we seriously hope there is a law that makes it illegal to spit on a baby.

The Guardsman is in full support of any proposition that will create new laws—or strengthen existing ones—which criminalize the act of expectorating on, or at, any baby, for any reason. Whether the person spitting is sitting, lying or standing, it should be totally illegal to spit on babies at any time, in any setting.

While we aren’t prepared to take an official stance on the ongoing prohibition of controlled substances at this time, we are aware of several laws currently on the books that prohibit the consumption of crack-cocaine. We cannot see how a sit-lie ordinance would mitigate the devastating impact of the illicit drug trade or otherwise aid in the prevention of public crack consumption.

The ill-fated 1968 Municipal Police Code section 20 was a nearly identical law, crafted specifically to deal with the presence of “hippies,”  who were viewed as a detriment to business. That law was struck down, and now there is hardly a business on Upper Haight Street that doesn’t cash in on the fascination tourists have with all things Haight-Ashbury hippie related.

We are unconvinced that a recycled anti-hippie ordinance that met it’s rightful demise in 1979—one that unnecessarily criminalizes children at play and working people at rest—is needed to address the illegal behavior being milked for shock value by those in favor of sit-lie.

This isn’t about the homeless. We think that any city with as many struggling, desperate people forced to sleep on the street as San Francisco, has a serious problem, but it isn’t one that can be addressed by this law.

This is about freedom of expression.

In the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision, Lloyd Corp. LTD v. Tanner, First Amendment protections for privately owned shopping malls were eliminated.

This decision, and the continuing privatization of formerly public spaces in the United States, has created two competing visions of freedom: one unfettered by anything apart from the constraints of the Constitution, and one limited by the whims of corporate custodians.

In a nation that fails to provide it’s citizens full Constitutional protection within the boundaries of corporate property, the distinction between public and private space is a matter of liberty. Freedom-loving citizens must embrace and defend their public spaces, and sidewalks are included in that.

The people trying to claim sidewalks as an extension of corporate property are attempting to elevate the rights of consumers over those of citizens. If we let  them take away the sidewalks, we’re letting them take away one more community space for political expression.

In a city built on progressive values of free expression and community, we cannot afford to let irrational fear cloud our vision.

It makes sense for people to want a feeling of security in their own neighborhood. It isn’t wrong for them to expect law enforcement to live up to it’s name and enforce existing laws that protect the security and sanity of our city.

But it is wrong for us, as a city, to allow a few scared people to push ill-conceived, destructive laws—laws that have already failed in practice—on an issue that affects the lives and freedom of us all.

Any law that makes it illegal for a child to shoot marbles, draw with chalk or otherwise play on the sidewalk is a bad law. The fact that sit-lie will do just that unless it is selectively enforced, points to the lack of thoughtful planning on the part of those who have revived this simplistic and overreaching law.

This isn’t about public safety, this is about setting a precedent and taking a stand.

The business and property owners who value their own prosperity over the freedom of the general public are digging in their heels, and claiming the sidewalks for themselves and their commercial endeavors.  We as citizens, renters and average San Franciscans must also take a stand and defend our claim to the sidewalks and all other public spaces.

The future of our freedom depends on it.