SAN FRANCISCANS PROTEST NO SIT LAW
 
By Michael Iacuessa
Close to 1,500 people participated in nearly 100 events across San Francisco March 27 to protest a proposed law that would criminalize sitting or lying on the city's sidewalks. From the Richmond to Bayview, opponents took to the public pavement to hold barbecues, tea parties, play games and draw. At Market and Powell, a circus of clowns sat down to drink coffee. In the Sunset, a group of comedians performed their routines lying on their backs. In the Castro, people painted sheets covered the sidewalk. The near spontaneous events were prompted by a grassroot organization, Stand Against Sit Lie, which formed just two weeks ago.
The No Sit/Lie law, proposed by new police chief George Gascon and set into motion by Mayor Gavin Newsom, would be the first of its kind in the country. While some cities have similar laws in designated commercial districts, San Francisco's would apply city-wide. While the law has considerable backers, the number of neighboroods which drew protests made it clear that support does  not apply as widely.
In the Mission, one group gathered in front of the Social Security building on Valencia Street with a banner that read "Newsom lies all day while we can't even sit." Just a few blocks away, musician Annie Bacon set up alone on a busy commuter street only to be joined by a dozen people as the day passed. At Mission and Cesar Chavez Streets, Chicken John, who lost the 2007 mayorial race against Newsom, had a sidewalk hot tub party.
In the Haight, the Homeless Youth Alliance printed silk screen t-shirts while down down the street the crowd was large enough at a sidewalk cookout in front of the Bound Together anarchist bookstore, that three police cars were needed to clear the sidewalk. "Who is in charge here?," the first arriving officer asked to blank stares. After the policewoman's third attempt, one man responded, "We're all anarchists. No one is." To which everyone went back to what they were doing. 
In addition to expressing support for the homeless, opponents argued that there are no exceptions written into the law for people protesting, street musicians or even for children playing. "If a grumpy neighbor who doesn't like you or your children and wants to call the cops, he will be able to and you can be fined," claimed one man. It is an example of why many are concerned that the law is designed to be selectively enforced. They say police should enforce laws not determine what is illegal or not.
The city's police department in fact has been accussed recently for overstepping its bounds in its enforcement of nightclub laws and for removing personal items while breaking up house parties, something Newsom himself has calle d the chief to address. Last week, Gascon also came under fire for stating the city needed more protection against its Middle Eastern community during a speech to raise support for a measure to build a new police headquarters.
At a rally at Castro and Market Streets activist Tommi Avicoli Mecca noted it should be an issue the gay community also should be concerned about. He explained the city passed a similar law in 1968 to clear hippies out of Haight Ashbury that was used to arrest gay men sitting outside bars in the Castro. Harvey Milk was in instrumental in abolishing the law. Ironically, Newsom (who Wired Gypsy recently learned was seen having sex with a woman on a car at a posh hotel during his first term prior to undergoing treatment for alcoholism) is best known outside the city for being a forerunner among politicians for his support for gay marriage. At the sidewalk protests words toward the mayor were not kind suggesting that those who are calling the measure a divisive issue with the election looming might not be far off. It is to early to tell if the gay community in particular will be divided but gays and lesbians make up a large subsection of the city's homeless youth.
The law's proponents mainly include those fed up with the city's chronic homeless problem. Initially instigated by merchants in the depressed Tenderloin district, the group, with the aid of a columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle, gathered support in the more commercial Haight Ashbury district where residents, tourists and shoppers have shared tight sidewalk space with scruffy homeless youth for decades.
Elsewhere similar laws have had limited success in curbing homelessness but opinons have been mixed as to their effect overall. In two other Northwest cities, Portland and Seattle, a compromise was reached in providing more public benches. What is certain is that San Francisco will be spending its coffers to defend itself against lawsuits if the measure passes. Laguna Beach recently repealed a no camping law after being sued by the ACLU and in Los Angeles, the civil rights organization was successful in stopping police from sighting homeless campers at night.
The U.S. Supreme Court has generally held that sidewalks are equal to parks regarding the First Amendment right to peacefully assemble. Bans on usage in limited areas have been upheld in other courts and for protests, only when "free speech zones" have been set up as an option.
The proposed law in San Francisco calls for a $500 fine or 30 days in jail after an initial warning. However, in other cities convictions haveproven difficult to obtain. Another provision of the law would require dogs to be within two feet of an owner at all time which based on common practice of people tying their dog to a parking meter while shopping would effect vast numbers of residents.
ACLU canvessers were visible near many of the San Francisco protests. Likely anticpating the oncomming legal expenditures, one canvesser explained, in the current political environment in the country, the ACLU is already stretched thin for funds.
| 
