Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you statement entirely. About the blocking of driveways and commercial properties, i think this is good in itself, becasue of the bad elements too that take up useless space. What is the big freakin deal here, wish people would stop making something out of nothing.
This is not a bad thing, it is how one perceives this, i do not see this as bad, And hate to tell you this, but i have been in other States in the South and in the East, with plenty of homeless blocking Streets, bet ya some were Dems to.
I live in San Francisco, and it's MUCH more "free" than the media lets on... you can literally walk down the street smoking a joint, and cops will simply wave or drive on by. You can also eat whatever you want, drive whatever or however often you'd like, and nobody will say anything about it. And I've never been stopped from sitting down, not that I'd want to - especially downtown. You do realize the bums PEE on those streets, right? So why on earth would anyone but a homeless person want to sit there?
Funny story, one time I was shopping on Haight Street, and just got too tired to walk any further. So I copped a squat on the street, leaning up against a wall outside of a store - sat there for maybe 5-10 minutes, and made about $2 from passers by. I wasn't even asking for money or dressed too schleppy (kinda hippie-ish), they just assumed I was homeless! So in reality you won't often see a non-homeless person sitting on our streets, and this ordinance is just trying to cut back on that. Not saying I agree with it, since I think they have the right to sit wherever they want... but I do understand the reasoning, and it's much more complicated than "liberal big government."
Sounds pretty conservative to me. Interesting how the conservative OP is trying to twist it into a "big government liberals" story.
Yes, especially since Prop L was voted on and decided by a majority of San Francisco voters in the last election---big government my arse. And the race was basically decided by homeowners in the wealthier neighborhoods of San Francisco. That being said, I'd probably be all for this measure if I lived in San Francisco---although the whole thing really started with the frustration of home owners in the Haight Ashbury neighborhood with the street punk kids that infest the sidewalks of that neighborhood.
But yeah, why turn this into the usual "look what those wacky liberals did in San Francisco" when this is one of the more conservative laws to be proposed recently in the city.
P.S. We really don't have many public benches, aside from in the super touristy areas... I used to sit on people's front steps on my work breaks, since there was nowhere else to sit without walking to a nearby park (a bit far for my break time). Luckily people didn't care, as it's a pretty normal sight around here.
When passers by assume you are homeless then it is time to revamp the wardrobe.
LOL... I was only like 18 at the time, and was kind of into the hippie look (long flowing skirt & tunic). So yes, I understand why they might have assumed I was homeless - despite the fact that I'm always clean, and had my hair nicely done.
But even somebody in a suit could be mistaken for homeless, if they were sitting on the public street... since as I said above, you only really see homeless people doing that, as the rest of us don't enjoy getting pee & glass on our clothing. Depends on the neighborhood of course, but sitting on Market St or Haight you're bound to get some change!
But yeah, why turn this into the usual "look what those wacky liberals did in San Francisco" when this is one of the more conservative laws to be proposed recently in the city.
No doubt! Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be more of a conservative thing to push out & discount the homeless? A raging liberal would be more likely to say "let them sit, we're all humans!" Or am I totally off on my political assumptions? Seems there's no difference anyway, since everything can be flipped to "typical conservative or liberal" depending on who you ask.
No doubt! Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be more of a conservative thing to push out & discount the homeless? A raging liberal would be more likely to say "let them sit, we're all humans!" Or am I totally off on my political assumptions? Seems there's no difference anyway, since everything can be flipped to "typical conservative or liberal" depending on who you ask.
You're absolutely right. Some people are so partisan that they'll twist every news story to try to make the opposite side look bad. If San Francisco repealed the law, they'd say, "Look at those extreme liberals. They're against having simple law and order in their city."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't even asking for money or dressed too schleppy (kinda hippie-ish), they just assumed I was homeless! So in reality you won't often see a non-homeless person sitting on our streets, and this ordinance is just trying to cut back on that. Not saying I agree with it, since I think they have the right to sit wherever they want... but I do understand the reasoning, and it's much more complicated than "liberal big government." 
