1 in 3 Cities Criminalize Sitting

http://homelessness.change.org/blog/view/1_in_3_cities_criminalize_sitting

by Natalie Wendt July 29, 2010

Think of Berkeley, Portland, Seattle and you think of liberals, hipsters, hippies ... and anti-sit/lie ordinances? You should. They're all among the 30 percent (pdf) of 235 U.S. cities that have passed ordinances prohibiting sitting or lying down on public sidewalks. San Francisco aims to be next, and it's citing similar laws in these cities and in Santa Cruz and Palo Alto as precedent.

The big source of inspiration is Seattle, which has had its anti-sit/lie ordinance since 1993 and was the first major city with this kind of, um, regulation. Its ordinance also held up in federal court, unlike Portland's laws, which have all expired or been struck down in legal battles. In Seattle, much like in San Francisco, shopping was the impetus for kicking people off the curb. In both cities, shoppers and housed residents complained about the visible homeless population, some of whom panhandled aggressively. Afraid the homeless were scaring off revenues, Seattle passed its anti-sit/lie law in its downtown area. In practice, police rarely ticket people for sitting or lying down on sidewalks, but they do warn people to move along. Homeless downtown Seattleites often move repeatedly throughout the day. But Seattle still has thousands more homeless people than it does shelter beds, to say nothing of its lack of shelter during the day.

===============================

Hard to believe, huh? But it's happening all over the country.

These ordinances should be comdemned as human rights abuses.

homelessness instead of spending their energy thinking up shit regulations.

In two short sentences.

...who, in turn, need to spend their time informing others.

and treating the homeless like human beings. Never mind. I guess this all makes sense, then. :sarcasm:

They're called sideWALKS, not sideSITS. Pedestrian traffic should not be subject to avoidable blockage any more than highways. And you better bet you'll be hearing from the cops if you sit or lie down in the road.

Yeah...that's the ticket...

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

;)

like real people? I mean what's the attraction of sitting around on sidewalks like they always do? Did you ever see some of them. Filthy clothes, unshaven...and the odor! They should straighten up and fly right, I say! Now, excuse me. I have a tee time to make.

Lots of homeless here and slowly but surely they're getting banished from the on and off ramps. I really feel for those folks.
I drive for a living and see them all day long. Come Winter, it's enough to make you weep.

Go figure.

Why not adopt that model for sidewalks, if you're so very worried that someone might sit down in the "wrong" place?

That's not what this is about. Currently homeless and panhandlers are allowed to sit or sleep on sidewalks without blocking them. Sit/lie is a NIMBY law.

That's what Rush told me! And I don't mean the band!!!11(biblepi/3)11!!

the sidewalk-sitters, it's getting so I have to change out of my Manolos if I want to walk to my Bimmer.

THAT was hilarious! :rofl:

Clearing the sidewalks solves TWO problems at the same time!
:rofl:

Good response. :thumbsup:

was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

vigorously during The Depression to discourage "hobos" from staying too long in any given city.

Vagrancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagrancy_%28people%29

Woody Guthrie wrote about it in his song, Hard Travelin'.

Everyone is "equal" under the law, donchya know.

And, yes it is :sarcasm:

:rofl:

(It just occurred to me that I might need this)

:sarcasm:

have a folding chair to sit upon? Or is that loitering in a chair?

There should be a place to hang out if you're homeless....where there is a computer and maybe they could show some movies throughout the day. Serve coffee, water, snacks.

And there should be showers, too. And someone to offer assistance on housing, health, etc.

It would take so little to help out these folks.

We used to be a half-way decent society...then came Raygun.

the daytime. Lots of homeless people use the library as a resting place during the day, or public parks, although many of them have anti-loitering laws, too. (I thought parks were FOR loitering, but what do I know). The real problem is that nobody wants to spend any money on homeless people. They just want them to go away. They don't want to see the evidence of their failure to assist people who need assistance. So, they push them off to areas where nobody really goes. It's an ugly business: the way we treat the most helpless of our citizens.

Fran back in the late '70's. When I had leftovers, I would sit them outside w/ plastic utensils and napkins. In the morning everything would be gone. No mess left.

I always hoped they enjoyed my cooking.

If I go downtown, I always have spare change in my pockets to give out if asked. It's the least I can do. I knit scarves during the year and give them out starting in November...

I am old enough to remember 'the poor house' where poor people got to live. They're all gone....along with the Orphanages and Mental Facilities. Our nation really sucks. Mean, no civility, greedy.

Damn shame.

brought food to many homeless people. But, it's not enough. We need to provide for these poor, often ill, people as a society. We don't.

A friend of mine who owned a bookstore had a solution that he used to get homeless people out of his doorway. He'd give out gift certificates from food places within easy walking distance. He also gave away clean clothing, and other things. The homeless would stop by his shop, but not hang around. He was pretty generous with these things, but it never got out of hand. Oh, yeah...he also handed out books to any of the homeless people who wanted them, since he also sold used books. They liked him, and visited, but didn't hang out there.

this money on war and killing people. It's such a waste. I bet 1% of the Defense Budget could do miracles for the homeless.

Maybe y'all should get together on this. I mean a parked car and a person are like, so similar, aren't they?

I mean, you could have spent your time explaining that people were upset because these laws were targeted at the homeless and were just an excuse to bust them off the streets and out of sight, and then maybe explain that there are already laws against blocking the sidewalks in case someone becomes an obstruction. You know, have a discussion on a discussion board? Try to tell the poster your point of view and see if maybe he or she just missed it, or if they really disagree with you, and give them as much time and right as you to make their point.

Assholery is the problem here, not right wingers. Right wingers get banned. Bullies are allowed to thrive.

And in case you're wondering, I'm against these laws, too, so it isn't that I disagree with your opinion of these laws. Only with your value as a poster here, at least in this case.

I need to talk about what is said, not the person saying it. Thanks for the heads-up.

Get it straight. :mad: :sarcasm:

If the sitter or lier-down is blocking people, or access to some place, they should be asked to move, and arrested if they refuse. That's a public nuisance, and there's no political agenda to it.

If there is no public nuisance, then it's an infringement on their rights.

Some places have actually made sitting on the front steps of one's own property a crime.

Similarly, the city should face fines for not providing sufficient shelter space for its homeless, for creating and encouraging public nuisances.

Sound good? Am I missing anything?

--d!

those who are actually blocking passage. I mean, homelessness is ugly, isn't it? Why should the good people of the city be exposed to such ugliness, after all? Keeping the sidewalks passable is not the goal of these ordinances. Keeping the problem hidden is the goal.

These ordinances are in lieu of actually doing something about the problem. Out of sight - Out of mind.

And even if we had saner laws, police would still be able to use their discretionary powers to roust the people who make them, uh, uncomfortable.

Most cities have some kind of office for the homeless, as well as formal programs to take care of them. Even today, nearly complete, institutional discrimination against the homeless persists. But with a large number of long-term unemployed -- "99ers" -- many of whom will soon be appearing on the streets, that discrimination will be getting a more critical look.

--d!

1. In the early 1990's there was a hefty lawsuit against a city after a pedestrian tripped over a homeless person sleeping on a sidewalk and was injured. The person successfully argued that the purpose of a sidewalk is to facilitate pedestrian transportation. If a person were to park a car in the middle of the roadway, and a police officer were to drive around the car without citing it or having it towed, the government would be partially liable when someone later came along and slammed into that car. By failing to respond to a hazard on government owned property, the government becomes liable. The argument, which was successfully made in court, is that by not addressing the issue of people sleeping on or otherwise obstructing sidewalks, the government is ignoring and accepting liability for a hazard to other pedestrians.

2. The Americans with Disabilities Act took effect in 1992, and since that time there have been a LARGE number of lawsuits against cities and other local governments over sidewalks that are obstructed or otherwise impassible by disabled pedestrians or wheelchair users. The courts have found, repeatedly, that cities have a legal responsibility to maintain their sidewalks in a manner that allows all citizens to use them, in spite of any disabilities they may have. This includes a requirement that cities keep the sidewalks clear of obstructions, whether placed by private citizens or the government. My city actually banned A-frame advertisements on the sidewalks in front of stores for this exact reason.

Discrimination against the homeless is certainly part of it, but there ARE other major factors at work here.

ordinances. They are, however, not the actual goal of the ordinances, which is to get the homeless people out of sight. That is the actual goal. If people can't see them, the city won't have to feel like they have to really do anything about homelessness in the city.

It's easy to mask the true reason for discriminatory laws. Happens all the time.

I live in one of the towns mentioned in the OP (Palo Alto, downtown to be specific), which passed a no-sitting downtown ordinance mainly because of one particularly aggressive individual who would block foot traffic while panhandling. He's been offered assistance, including a city paid-for apartment, which he doesn't use because it's not close to the good panhandling areas. He recently ran for city council on a platform of repealing the law, but lost.

The homeless aren't invisible here. I usually see them sitting on the benches on the main drag, or in the park, or at the library. As long as they don't sit on the sidewalks the police seem to mostly ignore them and focus on bigger things - like writing parking tickets.

I'm curious.

Maybe that's what's being referenced.

Didn't little Bloomberg come up with that early in his mayoral career?

criminalizing poverty by other means has been a priority since the 80's.
:kick: & R

We've been fighting against this in SF for some time now, but the PTB in this "liberal" city are so very "business-friendly" :puke: that it's like ice-skating uphill.

Solution is simple. Pass a law mandating housing. You'll pay a fine on your taxes if you don't have a house or an apartment. We'll even give you a subsidy if your income is too low.

misunderstand your post, I'm afraid.

Got this idea directly from Obama though. He mentioned it to show how dumb mandates were during the campaign.

i've had it happen to me, i'm glad everyone else on DU is a big tall man who has nothing to fear from loud, aggressive alcoholics who grab you and demand money, but the fact is, IT IS SCARY being grabbed and shaken down for money and i won't approach close to areas where it's obvious that drunk, loud, aggressive men (homeless or not, who knows, but loitering) men are "hanging out"

don't sit or lay down such to block sidewalks or entrance to businesses/stores, seems pretty simple to me

to pretend that loud, drunk, alcoholics (homeless or not, i'm not carding them to check their address when i'm walking downtown) aren't scary and in some cases threatening is an insult to my intelligence

are america's downtowns only to be enjoyed by the tallest and the strongest? there is also value in downtown being a safe place for women, the elderly, and children to go, believe it or not

suffering doesn't make people wonderful people, sometimes it makes them angry and dangerous, and i don't blame the downtown areas in question for trying to find a way to make downtown feel safe FOR ALL

most stories have two sides, and i don't think such rules are bad at all, there are other places you can sit besides blocking a public sidewalk UNLESS YOUR DELIBERATE PURPOSE IS TO BE "IN YOUR FACE" AND THREATENING

when i was homeless it never would have occured to me to draw attention to myself in such a way, but then i wasn't looking to trip people up, nor had i completely abandoned my pride such that i'd sleep right out in public, either way, somebody sitting on a public sidewalk has some kind of serious issue that won't be helped by humoring them and letting them stay there -- and letting them stay there can hurt someone else (such as the store whose access is blocked or the tourist who decides they can't use that street/sidewalk)

How did you go from "sitting" to "grabbing, loud, alcoholics"?

sense. I think there are existing laws against public drunkenness and assault that would apply nicely. It seems to me that you're equating homelessness with something else. Most homeless people I've met or seen are not violent or aggressive in any way. Most are ill, either physically or mentally. They don't need all-caps shouting. They need active help by the society.

Now, I'd have no problem with a program that actively helped homeless people to get off the street, obtain the medical help they need, and offered some form of housing and a place to be during the day. That would be great. Typically, that's not what's being done here. Instead, the idea is to push the homeless down the road into areas where they won't be seen by the "good citizens" of the community. That's as far as it goes.

You feel unsafe around homeless people, it seems. I can understand that. So, isn't the answer to work to get your city to provide services for these homeless people, paid for by the part of society which has what the homeless do not? Just pushing them down into a warehouse district or into neighborhoods you probably wouldn't enter doesn't help. It just gets them out of your sight, so you can get on with your day.

never actually heard of the Pitohui before. A fascinating bird. I've learned something new today.

we are becoming more cruel everyday. K&R

When I was Homeless it was the Communitys that could most afford to actually do something for their Poor and Homeless population that did the least...

Boulder Co.
Santa Cruz Ca.
Palo Alto Ca.
Berekley Ca.
Seattle Wa.
Santa Barbra Ca.
Huntington Beach Ca.
Austin Tx.

Belive it or not some of the Commuinitys that can Least afford to do something do the most for their Poor and Homeless...

Burlington Vt.
Rutland Vt.
Madison Wi.
Bloomington In.
Ann Arbor Mi.
Kalamazoo Mi.
Lawerence Ks.

And I am going to give Exceptional Praise to Boston/Cambridge Mass. If I Ever find myself Homeless agin This is where you will find me...Cambridge and Boston treat their Poor and Homeless with Respect and Dignity,try to help not just on a personal level but as a Community as well!!

I'm all in favour of cracking down on aggressive panhandling, but I think that it is probably better to do that with a law that is only enforceable against aggressive panhandlers than with one that is only enforced against them.