It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police State: "Lefty" San Francisco Can Throw People in Jail For Sitting on a Sidewalk

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
This is from that same article.

An older guy who calls himself Birdman, who resides near Valencia Street in the Mission, articulated the humiliating dehumanization inherent in laws like sit-lie in a self-published flyer: "What if ur homeless and broke and have nowhere to go? Are u forced to stand like in Abu prison? While a DOG is free to sit or lie?


I'd say he's got this pegged pretty well. The other part of this story is that once you get this fine, you have a criminal record, which automatically disqualifies you from any sort of subsidized housing.

Yep, they really are doing something -- just making things worse for the people affected.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by chiponbothshoulders
 


I walk just fine, bro. The sidewalks are densely packed with pedestrians trying to get around the city. The people who loiter on the streets cause bottlenecks, and are just in the way. They disrupt the flow of traffic. They also aggressively panhandle at any opportunity. I used to live in the city, but moved to the south just a little. I like acreage, and people-eating dogs, the 2 things I couldn't have in SF.

I'm not blaming the homeless.. They need someplace to go. All I'm saying is that it is easy to trip over them., etc... Besides, as someone said already, jail is not so bad for them. They get fed and are kept warm. Or at least I would assume, as I have never been in jail.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 

That is the messed up part of this. These people have nowhere to go, and getting a criminal record is going to hinder their efforts to get off the street. However, I don't think this is a NWO plot. This was put in place by the citizens of SF, and not the government. The people voted, and said that we are tired of tripping those who loiter on the sidewalk.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 


THe might have copied that tactic from London where the same thing happens. I don't like the 3 am soaking but is the 7 to 11pm curfew So bad?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 


I always thought they were spraying to wash the urine from the streets and sidewalks.

typo edit
edit on 23-12-2010 by tamusan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


Ugh..,

These are the kind of things, ESPECIALLY in the times we find ourselves living in, where the amount of homeless people are sky-rocketing daily, which make my stomach turn.

I know San Fran is considered 'upscale' and what not, and has some sort of image it wants to keep to due to the tourism industry, but this is really kind of a sickening way to treat our fellow human beings. Either get off our streets, or fines and jail time are on the way homeless people!

Another case of the wealthy obviously dictating the laws upon the poor and struggling.

I'm sure there will be more than one view or take on this, I just personally get disheartened by my fellow humans when I see our brothers and sisters treated like this. In these times, this could be you or I!

www.alternet .org
(visit the link for the full news article)


Well at least it gives the homeless easy access to "government" facilities with a roof over their heads and a (semi) decent meal per day.

Even easier to get 3 strikes and get put away for a few months, easy way for a homeless guy to make it trough the winter (if he survives prison ofcourse)

At the moment while typing this i dont know wether this post is supposed to be sarcastic, or truthfull in a way.

If your prisons would be less violent this WOULD make life easier for homeless i guess.. but for now all i see in it is a way to really squeeze every single last penny out of the already kicked to the curb populace.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Before the first Great Depression, the churches would have been the welfare assistance for these folks. Today, more churches are preaching personal growth and wealth, and less about helping their fellow man. It's no wonder that Christianity is falling aside, and greed is taking its place.

There are usually facilities and food for these folks, such as the Salvation Army. In Sacramento, we have facilities offered, including the State Fair grounds, churches, etc. on a rotating basis. Problem is getting to the rotating locations and knowing where they are. Usually these facilities are most active during times of extreme weather, not on a usual basis.

Considering the problem and its causes, it is better to invest in the youth, to prevent them from becoming druggies and bums by teaching them and their parents better values. We spend a lot of state money on people in jails and prisons in California, money that could be used to educate the youth. It's a dilemma that needs to be solved by the public servants.

Money goes a lot further with the private sector. You can bet the Salvation Army gets 10 times more for its money than a similar state program. One of our Assemblymen said that the money for public schools is cut by 50% on its way to a local school. He votes for, for example, $4500/yr (1988) and by the time it reaches his child about 40 miles away it is near $2000/yr. He cited some examples on the radio. He said that the number of administrators per 100 teachers was as follows: public school: 125, private school: 8 RCatholic school: 1. You do the math. Now you know why the kids can't get pencils, paper, or a decent lunch.
edit on 12/23/2010 by Jim Scott because: elaborate with example



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


You moved south to get out of the urban environment. You found an easy solution to your concerns. The urban poor have no such option. I am trying to figure out why you have voted to restrict their life further?

Wouldn't it be better to spend your money, time and effort on figuring out why there are so many homeless in the first place and how SF can solve it? After all, you are in the group with the resources and power.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by terry853
This is San Francisco where groups of men can have open sex on Gay Pride day in public places. The Home of Nancy Pelosi. Where your young men are unable to join the ROTC unless apparently they are gay. Altho the latest University pronouncements say that they will open up the ROTC now that gays are allowed to openly join the military. Carry on America. Let the flaming begin..


yeah...if they were in texas, the police would just club the crap out of them. by the way...how many gay pride days have you attended?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
maybe this is what all those FEMA camps are for...the homeless and poor, combined with the soon-to-be homeless and poor. more lost jobs and foreclosures in 2011 will add to this growing list of down-and-out citizens. welcome to 3rd world american society...but hey...good news...the wealthy got their tax breaks...and in the real world, that is what is important.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


Resources and power?
I only have the power to bend over and take it with the rest of you.

I didn't vote for this, as I am not a citizen of SF any longer. However, I do support it. I remember a time when the homeless could put up tents on the streets of SF, and that has long since been voted away. I do what I can for these people already. I buy canned food fresh from the store to take to can drives, instead of giving them the crap in my cabinet that I won't eat myself. I also give what I can financially to help my favorite shelter.

Why do I support it? I look forward to the day when I don't have to navigate around people who just hang out on the sidewalk. I look forward to the day when I do not need to see someone defecating/urinating in a parking lot or building entrance. I look forward to the day when people don't aggressively panhandle.

That's all a pipe dream though. The problem is getting worse, and I see newly homeless people daily. I don't know what to do. If I had all the resources and power, I would build them a place to live.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


Kudos for doing the stuff you do to help out. That is great.
As far as having the resources I only meant that in terms relative to the guys on the street who really have next to none.

European cities, from what I understand, have public urinals -- just barely enough to give some privacy, but at least there is some ready alternative to pissing in a doorway. It is too bad we don't have that sort of thing here. At a time of crisis, which we seem to be headed for, we need to have more affordable housing or shelters -- even tent cities if necessary. These aren't normal times.

Most third world/developing world countries have "shanty towns", that while ugly and perhaps dangerous, nevertheless provide a measure of needed shelter and community. Is America heading that way?

I sure hope not. Personally, I don't get too upset seeing people living on the streets here where I live because I know they have their reasons. To be honest, they don't congregate that much except a few near the beer store. I care, but I do not worry. I only worry how they cope when the temperature gets below freezing like it has been for weeks here now.

As a society we will always have some people who prefer living "off the grid" and I believe they should have that option. For the others, those who are there thru calamity or injustice, then we figure out what an appropriate "hand up" would be.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
The other part of this story is that once you get this fine, you have a criminal record, which automatically disqualifies you from any sort of subsidized housing.


The tickets have to be misdemeanors.

Doesn't SF have parks the homeless can hang out in all day ?

As for public urinals, even if they were built, something tells me most homeless people wouldn't use them anyways unless they just happened to need to take a leak while walking by one.

I used a public urinal in Hong Kong. It was the filthiest bathroom I've seen in my life.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
uhm Homeless shelter ? anyone
if the upper class wanted to throw homeless people in jail just
because they are homeless, how about building a homeless shelter for them,
hey the cost is the same, as far as i know
it cost the state millions to keep people locked up anyway,
they still have to get food, you might as well give them a homeless shelter.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I have been to san francisco a bunch of times. This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but every time I went to haight ashbury there were a bunch of hippies who I guess thought it was the cool thing to do to go to haight and walk around bumming for money. Its this glorified hippy-dom left over from the 60s that I'm not sorry to say is really freakin annoying when people are trying to shop. Ashbury street is pretty much all businesses all the way from the park straight down to well, the other park..and these people walk up and down with signs, or sit on the sidewalks and every single time someone goes by they harass them for money.

I couldnt go 20 feet wihtout being asked for change..its like that southpark episode..I get it, theres a lot of homeless, and people down on their luck. But I know some of these people, and I know their little 'groups', and these people generally are not hard luck cases. They are people who thought it was cool to be homeless on haight ashbury. Now I know this ordinance does not specifically state those streets, but I personally believe that the purpose of the ordinance was to specifically target those areas.

I say, good. If you want to go to haight, this aint the 60's anymore people.
edit on 25-12-2010 by Xavialune because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
OK, so I have read all the posts here and have a pretty good idea of what people here have to think regarding this issue. However, what I haven't heard or read is an opinion from someone who was homeless in San Francisco. Considering the content of the story I believe that to be an important view we could all look at.

I was a homeless person who lived in a tent in the Presidio for one year. Why, is not relevant to the story. I am from the Greater Bay area though (born and raised). I have seen the homeless population grow by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years. It has not been a pleasant experience to say the least.

a few things we should know is that not all homeless are penniless. I would say about 3 out of every 10 receive some financial assistance of some sort ranging from 500$ a month to just over 1000$ a month. The City has a program for homeless that will house them as long as they can remain drug and alcohol free. Homeless people on the streets are not generally bothered by the police unless someone is in danger or being belligerent. In fact many of the homelessness sleep in the GG park and are never bothered.

The biggest problem are those homeless who are also criminals. The ones who subscribe to the theory of "I don't give a FK". Most of the homeless are Former veterans or older folks or folks who have hit a bump in the road and have no family or friend support system to call on. The minority of the homeless are the youth and drug or alcohol dependent folks. Honestly they tend to give the homeless a bad name.

Now having said all that, Non-homeless people, in the SF area are fed up and rightfully so. EVERYONE has the right to live in a safe, clean and (in the case of SF a-) beautiful environment. If some people abuse others rights then those people need to be punished. Is a fine the right way to go about it? No, of course not...my idea would be community service. After all we need a better sense of community. I really don't have a better solution to offer and I'm not the type to say their idea sucks without offering up something better, so their idea works for now. As it was pointed out earlier the people of SF voted and that's what they want. I don't think the people of SF have all the info to make an educated choice in the matter however. That's what I don't like about all this.

We need to get to know these people, to better understand where they are coming from and where they are going. You would really be surprised pleasantly I think. I'm not saying throw commonsense out the window and invite a homeless person to dinner with your family. I'm just saying maybe say Hi, maybe listen to their story. Volunteer at a shelter...or just be compassionate when you see a tent in the woods (don't call the Cops and complain that there is a tent in the woods). I was able to work my out of homelessness in SF and have done quite well for myself since. I didn't receive help from anyone beyond what any other in my place. I did get people who tried very hard to get me kicked out of the woods (which nobody could see from any trail) some people are just douches. What can you do, right?

Anyways what I'm trying to say is this...Just be human, be kind, get informed. Homelessness can not be stopped, so what can we do to make both sides of this happy?

Thanks for reading!




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join