|
|
|
|
|
 |
By Heather Knight
San Francisco Chronicle
Originally Published March 17, 2007
Calling the quality-of-life crimes that plague downtown San Francisco appalling and frustrating, Mayor Gavin Newsom said Friday he plans to clean up the area by opening a new courthouse to crack down on such infractions as public urination, aggressive panhandling, graffiti and prostitution.
Newsom returned Thursday from New York City, where he toured the Mid-Town Community Court. Opened in 1993, the court is heralded by supporters as one of the keys to former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s transformation of Times Square.
Newsom said he will open a similar court in the Tenderloin as soon as this summer. It would serve the several dozen city blocks bounded by Van Ness Avenue, Sutter Street, Second Street, Folsom Street and 11th Street, the area most blighted by quality-of-life infractions. It would be run by the San Francisco Superior Court but would be in an as-yet-undecided location separate from the courthouse.
"We are bringing it to San Francisco, and I cannot tell you how enthusiastic I am," Newsom said Friday at City Hall. "This is a big deal."
The details of the San Francisco court are still being worked out, but in New York City it works like this: People picked up for quality-of-life infractions are immediately taken to the court, where a presiding judge, representatives from the district attorney and public defender offices and an advocate for the homeless and poor are waiting.
Often, the defendant is assigned community service and directed into social services within hours of committing the crime. When possible, the community service is linked to the infraction; litterers pick up trash, while graffiti artists or vandals wipe down walls covered in graffiti. The court processes hundreds of cases a day, and the city spends $1.5 million annually to run it.
In addition, anybody wanting access to social services — such as drug treatment or job training — can show up at the court to ask for them.
"It’s exactly what we don’t do now," Newsom said.
Currently, those committing infractions in San Francisco are given citations and told to show up at traffic court in 45 days, meaning they can go right back to panhandling or whatever they were doing to get the citation in the first place. Usually, the citations are tossed out. Newsom said police have asked him why they even bother issuing the citations since nothing ever comes of it.
"No one benefits," Newsom said of the current method.
Newsom said respect for those committing the crimes will be paramount. But Jennifer Friedenbach, organizing director for the Coalition on Homelessness, said she doubts that claim. She said she is familiar with New York’s Mid-Town Community Court and called it "a huge waste of resources."
"There is absolutely no reason that somebody should be put into the criminal justice system when they have committed no crime except to be too poor to afford a place to live," she said.
She said anybody who appears homeless or poor is likely to be a target, unlike, say, a wealthier-looking man urinating against a South of Market wall.
"It ends up being profiling," she said.
Supervisor Chris Daly, who represents the area that would be served by the court and is a strong critic of Newsom, did not immediately return calls for comment.
Newsom has been studying the court idea for months and assigned his deputy chief of staff, Julian Potter, to lead a delegation to New York late last year.
She went with representatives of the district attorney, the public defender, the sheriff, public health and social services departments, the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and San Francisco Superior Court. The same delegation has since formed a committee to get the court up and running.
Before getting started, the program must gain approval from the presiding judge of the Superior Court, said Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn. Newsom met with five Superior Court judges to discuss the idea, Potter said.
Kahn said Friday that the court hasn’t seen enough details.
"In theory, there is a lot of support for a community court, but we need to see what the particulars will be," he said.
Lisa Lightman, who directs special drug and mental health courts within the Superior Court, said the idea is "long overdue" in San Francisco and that similar programs exist in 30 cities around the country as well as in London and South Africa.
"It’s really a trend that’s catching on," she said. "When you deal with the low-level crimes, it’s really the jump start to preventing larger instances of crime in an urban area."
Newsom has made combatting homelessness a top priority since he was a supervisor representing the Marina and Pacific Heights. In 2002, he successfully pushed for passage of a ballot measure called "Care Not Cash," which reduced the city’s welfare checks in return for housing the recipients.
The next year, he authored another successful ballot measure to prohibit panhandling aggressively in front of ATMs and on traffic islands and freeway ramps.
In 2004, his first year as mayor, he oversaw the writing of the 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness and began Project Homeless Connect, a bimonthly, volunteer-staffed, one-stop shop for homeless people to get services. He also has started Homeward Bound, which pays for a bus ticket home for homeless people and has pushed for more housing and social services for chronic inebriates.
Nearly 5,000 homeless people have been taken off the streets since Newsom became mayor, according to the mayor’s office. The city’s count of homeless people, conducted every two years, showed a 28 percent decrease to 6,248 from 2003 to 2005. The 2007 count, conducted in January, is to be released soon.
However, many of those housed under Care Not Cash are left with less than $2 a day to subsist, meaning many of them are still on the streets every day panhandling. That gives the impression that the homelessness problem in the downtown core really hasn’t budged, Potter said.
"You walk there and say, ‘Newsom said he did something, but it looks the same to me,’ " she said, noting that the proposed new court intends to fix that problem. "This is the next step."
Newsom said establishing the court is one of the main reasons he is seeking re-election in November.
"I want to make sure this works," he said. "It’s going to make a big impact on people’s lives."
- : 3.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Personally, I am against targeting these quality of life crimes. For starters, they target the poor more often than not. I feel that prostitution should be legalized and regulated, and as long as someone is not urinating on someone else’s property, and not in plain site of the public, that it should not be an infraction.
I’m much more concerned with corporations taking advantage of tax loopholes (such as B of A paying much less for property tax than they should).
Let’s tackle real problems here.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Being someone who lives in the area, I think it’s a wonderful idea that will positively impact San Francisco… Go Gavin! If you ever need someone to pick-up trash in the Tenderloin, let me know. And, given a water source and a hose I’ll gladly volunteer to clean the human/bird/pet refuse from the sidewalks and buildings.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Excellent move, Mr. Mayor. I’m a Bay Area native who has just returned to S.F. after 30+ years in the NYC market. I remember when Giuliani laid down the law and was chided by nearly everyone in New York. In less than two years everything had turned around, people were actually taking pride in their city, and Giuliani’s “tough love” worked to everyone’s benefit. I just hope you can take the heat and not cave in to your critics.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Phew, thank god someone is finally talking about these important issues. Ticketing those people who have no place to sleep or urinate is going to do wonders for the law-abiding people who can afford to pay $1800 for a one-bedroom closet or who think the city’s condescending policy towards them isn’t worth the trouble to deal imagine.
I’ve got an idea: actually include the people who the police will continue to harass in the shaping of these laws. I bet they have a better notion of how to deal with “quality of life” issues.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
How will the homeless get fair representation at these courts? Lawyers of their choosing and representation from the Homeless Coalition if desired?
Will there actually be services available for people or with this be another place the homeless are told “no” that there are not enough services for them?
I think a way to solve the problem would be to fix the problems - not the people. For example: 1)why do people urinate on the sidewalk? Where else is there to urinate. The city toilets are always broken and public toilets are often unavailable even if you do pay for something.
2) why do people panhandle - they need money (for whatever: rent, drugs, food, etc.) lets help people with their rent, help people with their addictions (the examiner reported SF as the most addicted city in the country) and help them afford food - by providing education, job training, and places where people with felony convictions can work.
Let’s fully staff the Homeless Outreach Team and support them. They do really great work!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
This seems like a really good idea. I have lived in the area for nine months and bear witness to a wide variety of crimes being committed on a regular basis.
I must say that before I moved here I was somewhat sympathetic toward the homeless, but after seeing their drug and alcohol abuse, their abusive behavior towards each other, and their total lack of respect for their surroundings (the city) I know longer sympathize with them. They don’t have to throw trash on the streets when there is a garbage can 10 feet away!
A few things about the crime level are really surprising: 1) the proximity to the tourist epicenter, 2) that the police don’t do anything about it.
This proposal is not targeting the poor or the homeless; it’s targeting criminals. If it would help garner support for this proposal, I would be happy to provide photo and film documentation of the excessive crime.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
mayor gaving newsom taking the most positive approach to our city’s ‘ quality of life ‘ with a proven approach ( NYC )is something so encouraging for me - a san franciscan who sees homeless people sleeping in doorways on battery and california streets at 6:30 am everyday on my way to work.
thank you
james m buckley
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
[…] We want to hear what you think about bringing a community court to the Union Square area to address quality of life concerns. Leave a comment. Vote in our poll on the front page of ActLocallySF.org. Better yet…start a blog. Here are instructions how to set one up. […]
March 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Great idea if actually done in a serious way. Rhetoric won’t do it. The notion of “targetting the poor” as expressed by others is condescending–it assumes poor people cannot be good citizens. San Francisco has a beautiful natural setting, but down on the sidealks it’s often a disgusting, nasty place because some of the people living here don’t respect the city or fellow citizens. We should not longer tolerate disrespectful behavior and this is a start.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
[…] So, we’re going here at HQ. I’d say about there are about 40 people. The first couple questions have been about Healhcare and when the Health Access Plan is going to start. The questions are moving to quality of life. There’s a a ot of concern about break-ins, burglary… The Mayor says they are arresting these people, but they are being released. He says that’s why he, the DA and others are in support of bringing a Community Court to SF modeled after NYC to tackle these quality of life issues. […]
March 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I would’ve considered myself an advocate of the poor - until I moved to San Francisco. It is obvious that our tolerance of them is only encouraging them NOT to take effort and improve their own lives. This would be a good start. The people begging for money outside of Powell Street Station are the same people who were there 4 years ago. They don’t want to change their lives enough to actually do it - not so long as they are given their basic needs by the city. Helping people would be one thing, but they have to help themselves also. As a responsible resident of the area that would be directly affected by this, I have to say I support it. Get rid of these people if they won’t make an effort to help themselves. Standing in front of Powell Street station trying to sell Street Sheets IS NOT making an effort. I know that the ultra-liberals in this city (and I consider myself very liberal) see anyone that isn’t poor or homeless as the enemy - but I pay $3200/month and work very hard to afford to live here. I’m not some lazy independently wealthy person who does nothing all day and lives a life of luxury. These people should have to put in at least as much effort - especially since they are the way they are because of the consequences of their own choices. Helping people is one thing - giving them a free ride is ridiculous and costly to our community. Get rid of them if they won’t help themselves.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:09 am
stop criminalizing street artists, please! i know the guys who started painting trains and underpasses in SJ back in the early 1990s; one is a very respected artist and the other is a great tattoo artist now (alladin and john roper)…
www.likroper.com
March 31st, 2007 at 12:59 am
lik roper:
How is vandalizing property not a crime?
March 31st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Priorities! Please get some. Exactly what is it about being asked for a quarter or seeing graffiti bothers you people so much? Sidewalks are public places. If the panhandler is sitting on your front lawn, s/he is wrong. If s/he blocks your path or hits you, even wronger. But the “problem” is Newsom’s favorite talking point and is NOT A “PROBLEM”, it’s just something rich people really hate seeing because it either makes them feel guilty (that’s their problem, get over it) or in the case of graffiti, “makes them feel like they’re living in a ‘poor’ area” which bothers them since it makes them feel lower on that social scale.
Quit being neurotic whiners. Get more toilets set up because urinating and defecating are HUMAN functions. Rich and poor alike do them. It cannot be helped. Without a place to go, THEN you have serious health issues and it’s a valid ‘quality of life’ issue.
Drugs? Support their legalisation. I am totally serious. The federal government likes to keep you panicked in case you have not noticed. The latest panic du jour is “meth”, but even though it’s not the healthiest drug lots of people began using it when the feds destroyed access to psychedelics and other drugs of a more peaceful nature. As I have said before: I live in Diamond Heights now, but spent 11 years in the “problem” areas and NEVER ONCE did the sale of sex or drugs EVER ruin my quality of life.
If your quality of life depends on perfectly clean areas full of perfectly rich people, please move to Walnut Creek. This is a major metropolitan area with hundreds of REAL issues. This is - except for the case of sanitation issues - a red herring. It distracts San Francisco residents from the real problems facing them.
Here’s an example. State and local governments need to resist the current federal administration NOW and RESOLUTELY. Want to get nuked? Want to have a 9/11 happen with the Transamerica Pyramid? The way the Shrubbery is flouting itself globally, you might just see this happen. The way to prevent it is to change federal policy, FAST, because the route it is taking puts all major metropolitan areas in “sacrificial” zones. When America attacks and occupies nations we have to EXPECT retaliations. We cannot possibly eliminate every OTHER terrorist on the face of the earth and be the last ones left. And even if we could, should we?
THAT is a problem. The crazy guy on the corner high on drugs and begging for a dollar is not the sort of problem to get uptight over. And Gavin’s record of producing these so-called services for such people is…practically nonexistent. He takes the last thing they have in the way of a little happiness away, replaces it with Care Not Cash because of the whinings such as we see here, and then talks about “volunteer-staffed” services.
These “services” will be nothing but people pointing the poor to places where they’ll wait in line for hours and get turned down for one reason or another. “Drug treatment” will turn out to be some NA meetings, which is not treatment, it’s church. It’ll be cheap and appealing, these “services”. But it won’t help anyone but the mayor.
Who ought to - one would think - have a bit more compassion for substance users himself…considering his admission to alcoholism.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
Well maybe if they would leave the ##&&@@ park bathrooms UNLOCKED there wouldn’t be as many problems with public urination. I went to Alta Plaza Park in the middle of the day with dozens of parents and kids, dog walkers, etc. around, yet the men’s room was PADLOCKED. I had a similar experience in Golden Gate Park recently. The bathroom near the Sharon Art Studio was open for women but LOCKED for the men’s side. This is NOT on the edge of the park where homeless congregate but farther in the park. This too was in the middle of the day, on a weekend. Give people more public bathrooms and keep the ones in the parks unlocked during the day. Pay toilets are fine, IF they’re working. Many times they are not.