Proposition L: Nevius Makes Case
Against Sit/Lie Proposition?

Photo by Luke Thomas.

By Ralph E. Stone

October 1, 2010

C.W. Nevius reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on Thursday that “hundreds and hundreds of citations that police give to aggressive panhandlers and those who drink and urinate on San Francisco streets” are either not prosecuted, dismissed by the courts, or simply ignored by the culprits. Reportedly, the police department, the mayor’s office, the district attorney’s office and the superior court are meeting to do something about making these “worst offenders accountable.”

Putting aside the legality and fairness of a sit/lie law, the past failure to prosecute quality of life citations raises the question as to why we need Proposition L, now on the November ballot. If passed, who says those citations would be prosecuted any differently. Or put another way, if quality of life violations were prosecuted now, what is the rationale for a sit/lie law?

Ralph E. Stone

I was born in Massachusetts; graduated from Middlebury College and Suffolk Law School; served as an officer in the Vietnam war; retired from the Federal Trade Commission (consumer and antitrust law); travel extensively with my wife Judi; and since retirement involved in domestic violence prevention and consumer issues.

More Posts