Sit-lie ordinance

In the United States, a sit-lie ordinance (also sometimes referred to as sit-lie law) is a municipal ordinance which prohibits sitting or lying on the sidewalk or in other public spaces.

Proponents argue that such ordinances are useful or necessary in keeping sidewalks free from obstruction, particularly for use by mobility-impaired persons, and that they are a useful tool in fighting undesirable behavior, while opponents argue that they are instead veiled attacks on vagrants and homeless persons,^[1] and, further, unnecessary and overbroad.

Sit-lie ordinances are most notably found in West Coast cities, since the 2000s, with Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and several San Francisco Bay Area cities – Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Honolulu, and San Francisco itself – having passed such ordinances.^[2]

In a 2009 survey of 235 US cities, 30% prohibited sitting or lying in some public places.^[3][4]

Proponents

In some cases sit-lie ordinances, such as in Portland, are part of a package of reforms, also providing services for vagrants, such as restrooms, benches, and day shelters, and in this context are argued as a tool to ensure that such resources are used.^[5] In Honolulu, the recent city sweeps have left city sidewalks cleared for the first time in two years and of the 293 homeless living in that encampment, 158 have moved into shelters.^[6]

Criticism

Critics argue that such ordinances are a criminalization of homelessness, a criminalization of ordinary activities – hence prone to selective enforcement – and unnecessary, since existing, narrowly targeted laws ban the undesirable activities such as aggressive panhandling, obstruction of sidewalks, loitering, and aggressive pursuit.

Certain aspects of some ordinances have been ruled overbroad; Portland's ordinance prohibited having possessions more than two feet from one's person, which was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Michael McShane in 2009, stating that he "found that an ordinary person would not understand from the statute that mundane and everyday behavior would be prohibited by the law," and that "the ordinance encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."^[7]

Critics in Honolulu argue that ordinance are just a waste of taxpayer money in a futile effort to clear city streets. Each sweep cost state taxpayers around $15,000. In the weeks after the clean ups, homeless encampments can be found blocks away from the previous cleanups.^[6] Most of Hawaii's homeless are tuck on the island with no close relatives. With the sit lie ban in place, homeless are forced to from city park to city park in order to avoid fines or confiscation of items. most city parks in Honolulu are being forced to close down earlier in order to prevent the homeless from using them.^[8]

History

Portland

Portland passed multiple sit-lie and anti-camping ordinances in the 2000s, which have all either been struck down or expired, and as of May 2010 was working on related ordinances that would allow sitting and lying.^[9]

Portland's most recent ordinance was enacted in 2007, set to sunset in June 2009. It was subsequently extended by 6 months, but during this extension was ruled unconstitutional by Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Stephen Bushong on June 19, 2009, who found that it was "preempted by state law," because "it prohibits conduct permitted by state law, and that's not permitted under article 11, section two of [the] Oregon Constitution." The police subsequently ceased enforcing it and the law sunset.^[10]

San Francisco

In San Francisco, a sit-lie ordinance was proposed in March 2010 by Mayor Gavin Newsom, but generated strong opposition under the banners of "Sidewalks Are for People" and "Stand Against Sit/Lie". It was placed on the November general election ballot as "Proposition L," and was approved by voters on November 2, 2010.^[11] In November 2012, however, voters in nearby Berkeley decided not to make it a crime to sit on sidewalks in the city's commercial districts between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.^[12]

Honolulu

In Hawaii, a sit lie ban and city ordinance law was put into effect December 2, 2014 by Mayor Kirk Caldwell.^[13] An extension to the Sit Lie Ban was vetoed later by Caldwell on May 21, 2015.^[14] The bans have drawn recent criticism from residents, stating that the laws are discriminatory towards the homeless community. In a recent study done by the University of Hawaii Department of Urban and Regional Planning, it found that 57% of the 70 homeless individuals study had identification documents confiscated by the state. This would require them to pay a $200 retrieval fee unless they were able to attain the fee waiver.^[15]

External links

• Meet the proponents of sit / lie San Francisco Bay Guardian, April 29, 2010