Add a Comment
More TBC Talk
Would Kerouac Dig an ‘On the Road’ Movie?
Are Gay Men Losing the Ability to Socialize?
The New Rules for Dogs
Famed Lowell High, By the Numbers
Was Sit/Lie Unfair to the Haight?
There could be some media navel gazing this week in the wake of news that the Haight has been hurt by San Francisco’s controversial sit/lie law.
Well, not the law itself. It has yet to be enforced in any substantial way.
But the massive amount of news coverage last year about the anti-vagrancy ordinance (which narrowly passed in November) focused almost entirely on the Haight. All that press about marauding violent street punks taking over sidewalks has had an impact. Some merchants say their business is down, tourist visits dropped in 2010, and the idea that the Haight is dangerous has colored public opinion.
The toll of the sit/lie publicity on the Haight is the subject of my column today.
What happened to the Haight is, unfortunately, textbook modern journalism. In an age of narrative storytelling, the neighborhood became the “face” on the story. Even though the law impacts the entire city, almost every news report cited the Haight. There are problems with aggressive panhandling and vagrancy in Union Square (which has far more visitors), but if you read a newspaper or watched TV news during the sit/lie campaign you’d have thought the Haight was the only place impacted.
That happened because the grassroots effort behind the law started in the Haight, and proponents kept the attention focused there. This infuriated some local merchants whose hearts sank when they saw their neighborhood repeatedly portrayed as a violent war zone. Let’s face it, no one wants to venture to buy tie-dyed t-shirts in a hood where they’ve been told they might get a shiv in the gut.
That’s a hyped, outrageous and inaccurate portrayal of the Haight, but go online and you’ll find plenty of postings (most anonymous) where that is now the spin. In the Internet age, the story that started in the mainstream press has since gone viral.
But, in fact, it’s easy to argue that these are some of the best days for the neighborhood. Only newbies or those with short memories have forgotten the 1980s and 1990s when the neighborhood was in decay and crack dealing was rampant.
Instead, today, there’s a renaissance of sorts in the Haight. You can see it at the Haight Street Market, which recently expanded and got a facelift. Customers fill aisles – this is a true neighborhood favorite – despite the fact that Whole Foods opened just down the street (where business is also booming).
Then there’s The Booksmith. Taken over by new owners four years ago (my friends Christin Evans and Praveen Madan), the bookstore consistently receives national attention and large crowds for its literary events. The store’s Bookswap parties (there’s one tonight) regularly sell out, and have become the place for smarty, bookish singles to mingle.
And it’s not just what’s new that defines the Haight – hit the Club Deluxe bar for its famous greyhounds, where they squeeze grapefruits to order as you watch, creating what has long been one of the best cocktails in San Francisco.
This doesn’t mean there haven’t been problems. But they’ve been widely known for many years before the avalanche of media coverage in 2010. How well known? For example, last Saturday morning at London’s Heathrow airport a Rough Guide tour book was found for sale about San Francisco. The guide noted vagrants in the Haight – the book was published in 2008.
To be sure, some of the recent incidents involving young street kids have been very disturbing. One involving a resident who nearly had his eyes gouged out in a fight was credited with starting the entire movement to create the sit/lie law.
But even that case was more complex than most in the media portrayed it. I found the victim whose case had become the rallying cry (no other reporters had gotten the man’s side of the story) and found that he was not in favor of sit/lie. He called the law “bullshit.”
In fact, there has been (and continues to be) deep skepticism in the Haight about the law and the media spin. In the end, the majority of voters in the Haight voted against sit/lie, according to an analysis by SFAppeal.
So now the Haight is dealing with a law most voters did not want, and fallout from a torrential media storm that has left them soaked in questions of fairness.
Scott is a columnist for The Bay Citizen and The New York Times. He has been telling the stories of San Francisco and the Bay Area for nearly 15 years. He founded the underground ezine ...
View Profile
About Us
Reporting Staff
Stay In Touch
- About Us
- Events
- Support Us
- Careers
- Corrections
- Letters to the Editor
- Privacy Policy By accessing this site, you accept our Terms of Use. Please read them.
© The Bay Citizen, 2012
- Katharine MieszkowskiEnvironment and Health
- Reyhan HarmanciArts, culture, nonprofits
- Zusha ElinsonTransportation
- Shoshana WalterCrime and punishment
- Jennifer GollanRegional government
- Aaron GlantzHousing, real estate, development
- Trey BundyEducation
- Matt SmithSF politics and government
- Andy WrightNews and engagement specialist
- Marie McIntoshPublic engagement manager
- Adithya SambamurthyVideo and Photography
Jason Bentley
It seems to me that in a business-savvy city like SF, that Haight business owners would have organized to leverage the mighty public relations talent here to mount a campaign that draws on the Haight's history as a peace lovin' community. There's no shame in countering negative publicity and perceptions, but so far, the Haight business community has shown little motivation in doing so, beyond flummoxed, defensive-sounding responses to reporter questions.
The Haight *was* the center of the sit-lie story, and I don't think it was irresponsible of reporters to frame their stories that way.
Gail Storm
The Haight was never the center of the sit-lie story. That support was fabricated from day one which is indicated by the vote total. People wanted the measure to pass and needed a place to get publicity so they took their mission to Haight Street, found a columnist who could dig up one of the long time neighborhood naysayers and blew the whole thing up. Police could not confirm a single incident.
Thomas Greggs
I have friends that have a business on Haight St and their business is thriving regardless of what any news article is saying. They have told me they dont think that the sit/lie has had any negative effect as far as tourists still coming to the area. This article seems like a reporter simply trying to push their feelings about the sit/lie issue and make it seem like its been a negative thing. I only state this because the reporter has a statement from Jim Seigel who was one of the MAJOR oppositions to the sit/lie law. This man from what i have heard is an egomaniac and only into promoting himself and his bong shop/victorian steampunk clothing shop or whatever he is calling it this week. I would take anything this man says with a grain of salt because of the company he keeps. Maybe instead of continuing to push this negativeness at this area why not talk about the new whole foods that just went in and the other brand new business's that are thriving in this so called downturn of vistors to "the Haight" There are many many positive things going on in this area that need to be highlighted instead of all this negativeness.
j lawson
The merchants on Haight Street did this to themselves.
Number one cheerleader for demonizing the sidewalks of the Haight and inciting panic:
Kent Uyhehara, owner of FTC Skateboarding and SFO Snowboarding.
"For Kent Uyehara, owner of FTC Skateboarding on the same block, the gangs of thugs are all too real. Just the other day, he was walking with his elderly mother and 10 intimidating youth with scary-looking dogs blocked the entire sidewalk and refused to move.
"Am I going to say something in that situation? Absolutely not," Uyehara said. "It's a fear of retaliation.""
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-10-19/bay-area/24141638_1_poison-pill-street-kids-sidewalk
http://uptownalmanac.com/2010/10/prop-l-campaign-sits-sidewalk-outside-ftc-push-law-would-outlaw-similar-behavior
http://www.ftcsf.com/
http://sfosnow.com/store/
Beth Roth
I have to agree with Thomas that having Jim Siegel, The owner of DISTRACTIONS, comment about the decline in tourist and the loss of $$ in his business is comical. Especially when you consider that he was the person that was telling people to BOYCOTT small business's that didnt agree with his opposition to the sit/lie law. Sounds like him losing money is a bit of karma in my book. I also love that he is now trying to say that his "bong" shop (which there is WAY TOO MANY on the street already) is now considered a Victorian Steam Punk Clothing store? There is nothing Victorian or Steampunk about tie dyed shirts and bongs in your store. Reader Thomas was right this guy is an egomaniac and just wants his name in the paper. Get a life Jim!!
M. bates
Ha! I just passed by Distractions and noted the new Burning Man/Steam Punk get-up.
I love the quirky businesses on Haight Street. It is a short walk from my apartment and I prefer to patronize local businesses. Will the quirkiness go when sit/lie comes into effect? I certainly hope not. I voted for sit/lie because after living in the area for almost a decade I am just tired of feeling threatened by big groups of wasted kids every time I walked down the street. Perhaps the majority of them are friendly, but I have found myself (unfortunately) walking near the splatter of vomit, urine, or puddles of liquor or dog excrement on the sidewalk. I've been yelled at and cursed simply for walking by (and not depositing my toll in the styrofoam cup). I've witnessed (on more than one occasion) crusties yelling at and beating their dogs (which is kind of more of a punch to the gut than an actual punch to the gut). I've been taking my one-year old kid to some of our favorite shops/restuarants when inebriated, out-of-their-heads folks veered suddenly at us or passed out in front of us, forcing us to walk off the curb into the street. I've wanted to sit with my family on park benches in the panhandle and found that every one within my vision was occupied by crusty drinking parties. Now, note that I have never actually been physically accosted by the panhandlers…and I understand that some of this is just part of city living…still, these folks can make the place pretty unpleasant on a daily basis. Even absent any actual violence, the media hype is kind of justified.
I hate the idea that we as a society would make it "illegal" to be poor or homeless, but at the same time, the people on Haight street are by and large NOT the same (desperately unhealthy, elderly or mentally ill) panhandlers you see in other parts of the city. They are partiers who are just passing through and meeting up with friends. If that means they're going to hang out on the street and make music, or sell bracelets, or dance or chat, I'm fine with that. If it means that local residents and businesses have to just sit back and accept being threatened by intoxicated crusties, their bodily fluids and their ill-treated dogs every day…well, I'm NOT fine with that. It's gotten so that my family generally walks parallell the main drag (on Waller or Page) to get to our Haight St. destinations, and we thereby avoid some of the craziness.
If the empty parking spaces on Haight reflect that fewer suburban teens are coming in to get their expensive tee-shirts/bags of pot, I think that's probably a short term dip in business that the neighborhood can weather as more local people discover that without the crusties on the street, the Haight can actually be a fun place to walk around and shop in.
s b
Here's an interesting statement: "dealing with a law most voters did not want". If the measure passed, most voters wanted it. The Haight does not live in a bubble or make its own laws; all of San Francisco's voters have a right to vote on quality of life issues that affect the entire city. Guess what? I can vote on the welfare of a neighborhood and not necessarily live in it, because this is a city and not a loose affiliation of districts.
In addition, the SF Appeal post you refer to noted that in the areas directly next to the Haight, sit/lie lost by less than 200 votes out of about 2800 cast (i.e., less than 10 percent margin).
Sit/lie was assailed by SF's progressive-friendly media elites, who demonize moderates or those with a contrarian view (i.e., CW Nevius and Ken Garcia, your name is mud). Thus, if you support sit/lie you are some kind of fascist by definition. And the media will trip over itself to prove that a measure approved by the majority of city voters somehow does not reflect the will of the people.
Gail Storm
A majority of voters in the Haight opposed it so no we did not want it.
Gail Storm
I live in the Haight and there are business I won't shop or drink in for their support of the measure. It insulted me on two levels - one, homeowners are allowed to sit on their sidewalks while renters are not (the wealthy supported it but they weren't willing to give up their own rights) and because it made some street performers illegal.