Legislatures in San Francisco are debating a controversial proposal to ban loitering, which include sitting or lying on public streets in well to do neighborhoods, such as Haight-Asbury.
"Police say they're hearing more complaints...From residents fed up with aggressive, intimidating uncivil behavior."
The likes of which ranges from merely sitting on a street corner, to aggressively asking for money, smoking crack, and intimidation of local residents. In one incident a woman reported that while walking with her 14-moth baby, she asked a group on loiterers to move out of the way so she could pass on the sidewalk and they spat on the baby. If passed the law would make it illegal for persons to block the side walks in any way. "The goal is not to arrest people, it's to change behavior." Assistant SFPD Chief of San Francisco. But those who are on the streets feel that it is a personal on the poor and homeless. Personally I think it is a complicated issue. I would agree that getting loiterers, especially violent, or aggressive panhandlers out of the family and commercial residences would be beneficial, but then where are the loiters suppose to go? Are they to have designated streets to occupy? Should we say it's okay for them to invade another poorer area? It seems that what really needs to happen is legislation for better resources for those on the streets. Once there are proper resources for these people, they will have less reason to inhibit such neighborhoods, and residences.
No comments:
Post a Comment