The Bay Citizen thanks our sponsors
The Bay Citizen thanks our sponsors
Posted in Youth

Updated 08/12/2010 at 8:42 a.m. PDT

Haight Street Kids' History Is Key

A sit/lie law won't address the problems of homeless street youth

  • Text Size
  • A
  • A
  • A
By on August 5, 2010 - 9:16 a.m. PDT

Big foot lives in Golden Gate Park.

He was 7 years old when he was taken away from his mother (because of an abusive step-father) and placed in a hospital from which he quickly escaped. The rest of his youth was spent in group homes or on the streets.

Big Foot has been hanging around the upper Haight on and off since the 1970s and says most of the neighborhood’s homeless youth came up in the same kinds of places: “They’re either runaways or throwaways. The system takes care of them for so long and then spits them out.”

Street kids in the Haight are at the center of the debate over the recent sit/lie proposals in San Francisco, which would criminalize sitting or lying on city sidewalks. The Board of Supervisors last month voted down a sit/lie ordinance backed by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Police Chief George Gascon, but a sit/lie measure might still end up on the November ballot.

You’ve seen the kind of people, mostly kids, these measures target: young hippies and punks, often dirty, toting tattered backpacks and sleeping bags, strumming guitars, and trying to “spange” (spare change) enough money to buy some weed or a slice of pizza.

Sit/lie supporters complain that street kids are a menace—homeless by choice and happy to harass warmhearted citizens into subsidizing their drug habits. Some are aggressive panhandlers, some aren’t. This we know, but why do we think they’re out there in the first place? Like Big Foot, the street kids I spoke with had a lot to say about how they live and where they came from.

“You’re in one group home, you start making friends and then they bounce you to another one, and you have to start all over,” Big Foot says. “The kids that get to stay in one place for a long time have the best chance of making it.”

Big Foot is tall, 40 and still homeless. He stands on the sidewalk in front of Amoeba Music at the western end of Haight St., towering over three scruffy young transients, talking about police in the neighborhood.

“If you know a city with cooler cops than San Francisco, tell me so I can move there,” Big Foot says to the group.

“There’s a difference between cops and pigs,” says one of the travelers, whose dirty clothes and battered acoustic guitar make him look every bit the homeless foster-care refugee he claims to be. “A cop will talk to you like you’re a person. A pig wants to abuse power. Cops are here for a sense of security. Pigs are here for a sense of fear.”

As they’re talking, an Amoeba employee comes out and politely asks them to move away from the store, and they don’t argue.

Big Foot says he spent 20 years in various prisons for armed robbery, assault and drug-related crimes. Now, he says, he’s trying to live better.

“I’d rather beg money and not commit crimes than be back in the system,” he says. “It’s a better use of my life to help out street youth—help them with resources to survive out here, teach them about dumpster diving, about eating food out of the garbage that’s on top, not the bottom.”

The next morning, Reset, 18, sits in the back dining room of the McDonald's across from Golden Gate Park. He’s been homeless off and on since he ran away from an Arizona boot camp for troubled youth a few years ago.

“If you want to solve the homeless problem, take them in,” he says. “If they stink, give them a shower.”

Reset is headed to a café up the street today to apply for a job. If it weren’t for his two backpacks you wouldn’t guess that he’s homeless. His hair is cropped close and his clothes are relatively unsoiled.

“I like to stay clean and presentable,” he says. “There’s got to be some level of self respect.”

Troll, 25 and transient, sits with Big Foot down the street, eating a slice of pizza. Like Big Foot, Troll’s name reflects her height. The two are talking about the stabbing a couple of days earlier of a homeless man in Buena Vista Park, just five blocks away. Both say police have been cracking down on street kids since the murder.

“One of us kills one of us, and [the police] reaction is to write more camping tickets,” Troll says. “If a yuppie kills a yuppie, do they start writing more jaywalking tickets to people in suits?”

(SFPD spokespeople did not answer requests for information about the neighborhood police response to the Buena Vista murder.)

Troll has a journalism degree from a small Louisiana college she attended on a scholarship. She says she couldn’t get a job after graduation and decided to start hopping trains.

“I came from a dysfunctional family without a lot of money,” she says. “I was not the typical college student. I only got to do it because of merit. People always said I had a bright future.”

Troll and Big Foot believe a sit/lie law is aimed directly at people like them.

“We’re already having to live with the danger of living on the street, sleeping with one eye open,” Troll says. “There must be hundreds of homeless people and transients in the neighborhood, and they’re punishing them for the actions of a few. Whoever votes for [sit/lie], their tax dollars are going to pay for putting people in jail for petty crimes.”

Back down at McDonald's, five spangers sit on the sidewalk, one plucking a guitar, another thumbing through a Steinbeck paperback. A police cruiser rolls up and the officer asks the musician, “Do you know any Madonna, like “Lucky Star?” The musician holds up his guitar: “I only have three strings.” Everyone laughs and the cops roll on. It’s a nice moment.

It’s hard to see how a sit/lie ordinance would do much to address the issue of kids living on our streets. If anything, it would alienate them further. Maybe instead, we should focus on who they are and how they got here.

Trey Bundy
Trey Bundy writes about youth for The Bay Citizen. He worked for 10 years as a residential treatment counselor with children from backgrounds of abuse and neglect. In 2009, he won the national William Randolph ... View Profile
Tagged:  
Chris Beach
Chris Beach
wrote on 08/05/2010 at 7:21 p.m. PDT

Trey,

Great column. Thanks for giving voice to the folks that the sit/lie ordinance is being aimed at. And while this ordinance, if passed, will surely succeed in further alienating these "spangers", I feel that criminalizing the act of sitting in certain public spaces is silly at best, and will violate civil and human rights at worst. Allowing the police to issue citations to people who are merely sitting, which sit/lie will do, opens the door to myriad opportunities for harassment and abuse, city-wide. Still, I can see why the Mayor is behind sit/lie. The scapegoating of the spangers does serve to create a media spectacle that can serve to show how Newsom is committed to "addressing the issue"; all the while ignoring the root causes of homelessness itself.

-Chris

Trey Bundy
Trey Bundy
wrote on 08/05/2010 at 10:27 p.m. PDT

Chris,

Thanks for weighing in. You're right. Some of our elected officials get behind toothless policies to show us that they're on the case. But unless they're ready to confront the city's problems at their core, we're not buying it.

Jamie S
Jamie S
wrote on 08/08/2010 at 12:20 p.m. PDT

Best piece yet on sit/lie

R T
R T
wrote on 08/09/2010 at 6:29 a.m. PDT

A well written and thought provoking article. However, for me, this article, fails to address the other side of the issue- those merchants and residents that are affected by aggressive panhandlers and other homeless. Certainly not all homeless and panhandlers on Haight are a problem, but there is no denying that some are and I think that sit/lie is a useful tool for police to have.

Chris Beach
Chris Beach
wrote on 08/10/2010 at 5:59 p.m. PDT

R T,

There are laws on the books that the police can use to address the issues in the Haight. Right now, San Francisco has laws against aggressive panhandling and obstructing sidewalks. Prop L (the sit/lie ordinance) is purely political posturing by the Mayor. Prop L, if passed, will make it illegal for anyone to sit on the sidewalk, or on top of any object (a chair, milk crate, piece of luggage, etc.) placed upon the sidewalk. This law will cover the entire city of San Francisco, not just the Haight. Senior citizens without assisted walking devices would be forbidden from sitting. Children playing jacks would be forbidden from sitting.

Continued . . .

Chris Beach
Chris Beach
wrote on 08/10/2010 at 6:01 p.m. PDT

Part 2 . . .

San Francisco implemented a sit/lie law in the 60's, targeting the hippies in the Haight. This law was used to harass Gay men in the Castro in 1974. Eventually, this law was removed from the books. If this new sit/lie law is passed, the potential for selective enforcement and subsequent denial of civil rights is real.

What causes the greatest concern for me is the way that the use of our sidewalks will be partitioned if Prop L becomes law. Our sidewalks are conduits of transportation. They are also urban public spaces that we all share. The ability to use public space as a place to discuss, to linger, to orate, or even beg, and the freedom to sit while doing these things, is directly connected to the concept of democratic society. Freedom of speech necessarily requires freedom to simply be in public when speaking. When our bodily position (prone, no; sitting, no; standing, yes) is regulated when we are on city sidewalks, our freedom is surely diminished.

-Chris

Starchild
Starchild
wrote on 08/11/2010 at 5:23 a.m. PDT

RT - What problematic behaviors would Proposition L outlaw which are not ALREADY illegal? I believe the answer is NONE. But if I am mistaken and you have information to the contrary, please let me know.

My understanding is that what Prop. L would do is make *everyone* who sits down or lies down on a sidewalk in San Francisco a criminal, whether they are bothering anyone or not, with only the arbitrary judgment of a police officer standing between them and a citation.

I also believe that the measure is clearly unconstitutional, and will be thrown out by the courts even if it passes. As such, it was a waste of scarce taxpayer money to even put it on the ballot.

A much better way to help local merchants would be to reduce taxes and regulations.

More Column Posts

Meet Your Neighborhood Bully

It seems one can find a bully anywhere—even at an anti-bullying event. I’m standing on the patio of a Potrero ......
By Trey Bundy    11/10/10 7:28 a.m. PST

Healing the Wounds of Bullying with 'Yes'

A recent rash of suicides by teens tormented because of their sexual orientations has fired up the national media and ......
By Trey Bundy    10/27/10 11:05 a.m. PDT

A Search for Family Meant Leaving Her Family

It was around midnight, and 13-year-old Aja was not about to follow her mother into their house. She'd had it ......
By Trey Bundy    10/05/10 1:43 p.m. PDT

Meet Foster Kids at the Crossroads with Support

Jennifer Rodriguez left her paranoid schizophrenic mother, became homeless at 10 years old and managed to skirt the child welfare ......
By Trey Bundy    9/15/10 12:00 p.m. PDT