Trash Bags Gloves pt.2

pDIV align="left" TABLE cellpadding="5"TR VALIGN="TOP"TDIMG SRC= "../sites/default/files/arch_img/519/photo_1_supplement.jpg" //td/trTR VALIGN="TOP"TD/td/trTR VALIGN="TOP"TDTR VALIGN="TOP"TD pby Liam Holt/p p On Thursday 27th, September 2001, an Ordinance tobr / amend Public Works Code 1407-1415 was debated by thebr / Rules Committee - a board consisting of Supervisorsbr / Tony Hall, Matt Gonzalez and President Tom Ammiano.br / This was the third in a series of meetings discussingbr / new municipal legislation proposed by President Tombr / Ammiano which would require that twenty four hourbr / notice be provided before the removal of unattendedbr / personal property. This legislation is being foughtbr / for by homeless people and their advocates to protectbr / the basic civil liberties of those living on thebr / streets. /p pThe basis of the legislation is the humanbr / right to own personal property. The legislation hasbr / become embroiled in many issues and has highlightedbr / many conflicts in the city. The concerns voiced by thebr / Parks Authority and Department of Public Works (DPW)br / pertained, for the most part, to the increasedbr / workload they would shoulder and the possiblebr / ambiguities that the legislation might cause./p pReferring to the previous two meetings, Supervisorbr / Gonzalez, who chaired the board, prefaced thebr / discourse by stating, “I think that the way that thisbr / whole discussion is being framed is losing sight ofbr / why people are compelled to do this. If many rulesbr / which exist were implemented properly, then there wouldbr / not necessarily be a need for this legislation.br / Unfortunately, the reality, when seeing the videobr / tapes which show what happens when there are encountersbr / between the DPW, police and the homeless isbr / disturbing.”/p p The concerns of the Park Department are chieflybr / that the legislation would contradict existingbr / anti-encampment laws. The department continues to pushbr / for amendments to exempt parks from the notificationbr / requirement citing a lack of resources to do so.br / However, John Viola of the Coalition for the Homelessbr / makes the point that, “It is important to recognizebr / that this is a statute about people’s basic rights.br / [Concerns regarding work burden] may not be the mostbr / appropriate way to look at this legislation.” /p p Indeed, if departments are not able to consider these rightsbr / with current staffing and procedures then thatbr / situation urgently needs to be examined. The samebr / necessity to reevaluate the importance of civilbr / liberties also applies to similar concerns from thebr / DPW regarding the feasibility of giving individualbr / notice. The discussion needs to be brought back, firstbr / and foremost, to those basic rights that must bebr / considered. /p pThe DPW head, Ed Lee, did suggest positive action.br / Speaking of collaborative and rehabilitativebr / initiatives, Mr. Lee said, “We have put brooms in thebr / hands of people in Caesar Chavez and have seenbr / results.” Referring to an initiative to encouragebr / collaboration rather than conflict at clean-ups in thebr / area, he rightly highlights the efficacy of suchbr / shifts of attitude. He continued, “We have contractsbr / with the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners; itbr / is their business to encourage homeless to build jobbr / skills and help us clean streets during hours when webr / cannot. We are very committed to going further in thatbr / direction. Obviously not everyone can do that, but forbr / those that are capable and willing we will encouragebr / that.”/p p Those advocating the legislation (including thebr / Coalition for the Homeless, POOR news, and homelessbr / people) cite, above all, the need to protect thebr / homeless, a vulnerable population who are alreadybr / massively disadvantaged by their situation. Kathleenbr / Gray, a homeless woman and member of the coalitionbr / pointed to the inefficiencies and dangers of currentbr / practices. “When you have systems which givebr / people blankets and medicines,” she said, “then turn around andbr / take them away, [it] is not only wasteful of resourcesbr / it is also very debilitating.” (See “Where’s Mybr / Stuff?” by Clive Whistle, POOR News Network, 7/10/01)/p pGray emphasised, "This legislation is aboutbr / permitting people to own things, to accumulate things,br / to go beyond just collecting bottles in a cart, tobr / have some nice clothes to enable to them to work abr / job.” She makes an important point about the currentbr / vicious cycle: Even if a homeless person can work,br / they cannot guarantee the safety of their possessions,br / they cannot save or accumulate property in order tobr / better their situation. She continued, “This is aboutbr / people’s right to own property. [That right] is selfbr / empowering, and those who are self empowered improvebr / their lives. When their lives are improved, thebr / neighborhood is improved.” /p p Ms. Gray referred to earlier comments by members ofbr / the 7th Street Commercial Association (SSCA) andbr / residents of the Potrero Hill area. The feeling frombr / these groups was that this legislation would makebr / their lives and business more difficult by augmentingbr / the accumulation of trash in those areas. The debatebr / has evoked strong feelings in many, some based onbr / perceptions which the homeless community is constantlybr / battling. /p pMaurine Sullivan of the SSCA implored, “Webr / are very concerned about this. To do an ordinance likebr / this would really cripple all of us who live and workbr / there. There was a cart in our driveway with brokenbr / bottles and syringe needles; it was terrible. I ambr / upset with that. The kids have a bad problem. We havebr / to escort employees after dark. We know thebr / statistics, we know [that some] are felons, we [alsobr / realise] that there are those who are mentally ill whobr / seriously need our help. You have got to help us. Webr / cannot be going through human excrement all the time.”/p pSullivan voices the erroneous fears shared by manybr / residents and business owners: that this legislationbr / will worsen these problems by hampering the police andbr / DPW in their work. The legislation does not intend tobr / do so. The language clearly accommodates the necessitybr / to remove articles posing a health risk (i.e. syringesbr / and broken glass) and the retrieval of stolen propertybr / (the abandoned shopping carts which are repeatedlybr / cited as cluttering large areas). /p pSupervisor Gonzalez attempted tobr / assuage Sullivan’s fears about the “felons.” Speaking frombr / his experience as a public defendant he contested, “I think when you’re speaking about felons,br / there is a huge difference betweens felons who havebr / engaged in violent activities and those who havebr / become felons due to very minor [infringements]. I canbr / assure you that you would not be scared of [thebr / majority of felons], and the ones that you would bebr / sc /ppared of are in the state prison.”br / Ms. Sullivan’s comments further highlighted thebr / need for this legislation as she asserted, “Abr / very small percentage of people have personal propertybr / in carts, they have all manner of objects that theybr / have gathered from goodness knows where, they are notbr / personal items.” This one sentence is justificationbr / enough for the legislation. Ms. Sullivan, the DPW, and thebr / police are not in any position to determine what mightbr / be useful to a homeless person or what might be valuedbr / personal property. Ifbr / individuals are notified that their belongings will bebr / removed if not claimed, they will make that judgmentbr / call; they are the only ones who can and they are thebr / only ones who have a right to./p pThe concerns of the affected departments, worriedbr / residents and business people are currently based uponbr / conjecture. The reality is that the homeless arebr / currently vulnerable; their lives are at risk. If thisbr / small piece of legislation can help then it should bebr / accepted, it should be given a chance. As Supervisorbr / Gonzalez points out, the Sunset provision will providebr / monitoring of the of the legislation. Post-br / implementation it will determine its effects ˆ”bothbr / positive and negative” and will make sure that it isbr / effective in its goals. If problems determine thebr / necessity, the board may modify the language of thebr / ordinance to facilitate the well-being of all. Whatbr / should not be confused is the legislation’s intent./p p During the course of discussion, Supervisors Tonybr / Hall and Matt Gonzalez and others have reiterated manybr / times that it is not only the city that will removebr / unattended property. When homeless people are forcedbr / to leave property unguarded, “whether it be to work abr / job, to go to hospital, because they are arrested orbr / just because they must use the bathroom,” thatbr / property may be stolen or removed by those notbr / authorized to do so. The point has been repeatedlybr / made that the ordinance in question only goes a verybr / small way towards providing security for homelessbr / people. Their property can only be secured if betterbr / facilities are provided- that is, storage lockers.br / This legislation is only a first step, a very basicbr / protection of the civil liberties of the homeless. /p pThe storage issue was expanded upon in Thursday’sbr / meeting by George Smith of the Mayor’s Office on thebr / Homeless. Mr. Smith outlined that there are threebr / storage facilities currently in operation: 219 lockersbr / at South Beach Resource Center, 100 at Bayview Hopebr / Center, and a center serving 375 low-income andbr / homeless people at 150 Otis street, a total of aroundbr / 700 storage units. Mr. Smith said his office wasbr / exploring possibilities to expand, mentioning thebr / use of shipping containers and the creation ofbr / self-storage sites along the lines of systems inbr / operation at airports. Mr. Smith said that he had madebr / a recommendation to the Mayor to convene a meeting. Hebr / suggested that this meeting would consist of abr / dialogue around the storage issues and requested helpbr / from advocates and interested parties. It is verybr / clear that providing safe storage is the essentialbr / next step, all parties agree on this. /p pIt has been pointed out that many interested partiesbr / may be precluded from this discussion due to the factbr / that the board meets on a nine to five schedule. Ifbr / you are unable to attend meetings because you arebr / unavailable at these times, your comments can bebr / directed to board by mail. Write to:/p pCity Hallbr /br / 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlet Place Room 244br /br / San Francisco, CAbr /br / 94102/p pAlso, all video taped meetings can be observed remotelybr / on Channel 26 or at a href="http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/" title="www.ci.sf.ca.us/"www.ci.sf.ca.us//a. Video tapes ofbr / meetings may be requested from the main offices of thebr / public library, where they are stored for up to 30 daysbr / after the meeting. To order video tape copies or tobr / enquire about the scheduling of meetings call (415)br / 557-4293.br / /p/td/tr/td/tr/table/div/p