Posted on 10/11/2007 7:59:07 AM PDT by SmithL
Versions of such an ordinance are in effect in places like Philadelphia and Portland, Ore. They make it illegal for loiterers to stake out a spot on the sidewalk in front of a business and camp out there for the day.
But mention it, and the reaction is immediate and polarizing.
Homeless advocates insist that such laws criminalize the homeless.
Angry, fed-up residents counter that we ought to just round them up and ship them out.
But at some point we have to confront simple truths. This is not an issue that is going away. For whatever reason, the issue - from Golden Gate Park to the sidewalks of SoMa - has touched off a firestorm of reaction in the city. Rather than attacking and demonizing the other side, it is time to look toward solutions.
In fact, representatives from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders are meeting with officials in Portland this weekend to see how their sit-lie ordinance is being administered.
Is sit-lie the answer? It might not be. But right now it is an idea in play, and it would be worth everyone's time to sit down and discuss it without the rhetoric. Surely there is middle ground in here somewhere.
What compromise has meant in other cities is that the angry residents realize and admit that there is a need for homeless counseling and services. But it also means that homeless advocates have to accept that there has to be some kind of an enforcement ordinance that allows police to get people engaging....
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I know....give ‘em cell phones....
Sad, sad, sad.... you sow what you reap. But SF has deteriorated to the likes of Sodom & Gommorah... they need some serious repentance or it will get worse.
In the old days, the cops would buy them a fifth of skullbuster, whack them on the head and put them in a boxcar headed somewhere else.
Read todays latimes. The city has agreed to allow homeless to sleep anywhere in the city from 9-6.
They call it camping.
It’s always a treat for me when I have to go to the Superior Court to pass by some animal defecating between parked cars with a smile on his face.
San Francisco created this problem - here’s free money! Of course, when it’s run out after a week of bingeing on crack and alcohol, by all means, harass our citizens as they go to work, ride the bus, ride BART, and use the ATMs. Sidewalks and streets that are in serious disrepair, but heck, let’s give the homeless WiFi!
You asked for this San Francisco, and now you got it.
I believe there is some space still unoccupied on Queen Nancy Pelosi’s front yard.
They just need to pick up their Impeach Bush sign first.
I'm glad I don't live there. The city is reaping what it has sown.
If everyone is entitled to free health care, shouldn’t everyone be entitled to a free home?
I think the answer is so obvious. SF should give MORE money to the homeless. I think they should announce that the City will give each homeless person $50 for each day they are in teh city. This way the homeless can get an education, get an apartment and get proper medical insurance.
This will solve the homeless problem in a matter of days!!!
This is how democrats have solved all of our problems in the past. It will work again.
Go ahead Gavin, make the offer.
Camping? Is the city going to provide each of them with a Coleman lantern and some marshmallows?
>> I think the answer is so obvious. SF should give MORE money to the homeless. I think they should announce that the City will give each homeless person $50 for each day they are in teh city.
$50 a day? Cheapskate! SF has “Living wage” laws, the city should pay THAT rate! :)
That’s a Debra? Must be headed for the “Adadictomy Clinic”.
That’s a Debra? Must be headed for the “Addadictomy Clinic”.
The article’s comments section on the SFChronic website has a slew of entries, some of them quite educational.
SF has a well-funded, well-entrenched Homeless-Industrial Complex of advocates and “non-profit” service providers living off the “taxpayer teat” (an oft-repeated phrase there) who clearly view bums as their bread and butter. The city spends $150 million annually (another oft-repeated phrase) on shelters and services for them. The “advocates” know all about working the media and legal system to keep their gravy flowing and leftys in city government are only too happy to pander to them. Of course, drunks and druggies are not interested in pulling themselves together and living a respectable life. Schizophrenics should be institutionalized if they won’t seek help.
Former bums who weighed in made it clear that the only solution is to make the homeless lifestyle sufficiently uncomfortable that the bums either straighten out or pick up and seek greener pastures. Feeding bums, giving them checks and check-ups and letting them run riot does them do favors. It merely supports them in their self-destructive lifestyle.
The tactical playbook a city government can use to bring heat to bear on these characters is well-known (Rudy was referenced several times). One has but to have the determination and perseverance to use them. Most of the comments for that article seemed well-acquainted with how this system actually worked. I can only assume the ordinary folks (and such people exist even in SF) are not represented in their government.
Right. That is the purpose. What's the problem?
I think bringing the guys from Bum Fights here to ratchet up their filmed extravaganzas to Bum Fight Death Matches might be the solution. Build a geodesic cage, call it Bum Dome. The last bum left after all is said and done gets a lifetime supply of Night Train and a free room for life at Motel 6.
Excellent post
But that doesn't keep them from trying. And the media wonders why their readers flock to the Internet? "Just the facts ma'am." is just an antiquated concept to these modern day "journalists".
They are bums.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.