Supervisors pass first reading of ordinance to clear 'bike chop shops' from sidewalks; debate over theft, homelessness and enforcement

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Oct. 3 passed on first reading an ordinance amending the public works code to prohibit the assembly, disassembly, sale, distribution or storage of bicycles and bicycle parts on the public right of way and to give the Department of Public Works authority to remove items that meet specified thresholds.

What the ordinance does: Under the legislation the city may remove bicycle parts or piled bicycles from sidewalks where those items obstruct the public right of way; DPW would be authorized to hold removed items. The board adopted an amendment, offered by Supervisor Jeff Sheehy and accepted without objection, striking language that would have required payment of an impound fee equal to the actual cost of removal and storage — effectively allowing people to retrieve items without paying that fee. As amended, the ordinance passed its first reading by a vote of 9–2.

Why it matters: Supervisors said the law aims to establish a uniform, administrative response to what many residents describe as “bike chop shops” that clutter sidewalks and appear to operate as unlicensed businesses. Supporters said moving enforcement to DPW streamlines sidewalk clearance and avoids criminalization of people living on the street. Opponents — including Supervisor Hillary Ronan and Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer — said the ordinance does not address the underlying problem of bicycle theft and could place additional workload on an already stretched DPW.

Key points of debate - Thresholds and ownership: The proposed ordinance includes thresholds (for example, five or more bicycles or five or more bicycle parts) that trigger removal. DPW Deputy Director Larry Stringer told the board DPW may hold items for 30 days and that the department generally will follow a bag-and-tag process only when instructed by police or when property appears abandoned. The city attorney clarified that a post-removal hearing would determine whether a removal was justified and that ownership is not treated as an absolute defense in the ordinance’s hearing process. - Theft vs. obstruction: Supervisor Ronan, who represents neighborhoods with many encampments, said her priority is addressing rampant bike theft and opening more navigation centers; she argued this ordinance does not reduce theft. Supervisor Sheehy and others said the ordinance is focused on clearing sidewalks and enabling DPW to do its job so pedestrians are not blocked by unlicensed, commercial activity. - Equity and enforcement concern: Advocates for low-income residents and homeless populations raised the risk that enforcement could fall disproportionately on people with few alternatives; the amendment removing the impound fee was adopted after testimony from the Coalition on Homelessness urging fee removal.

Vote and next steps: The ordinance as amended passed on first reading by a 9–2 roll-call vote, with Supervisors Ronan and Fewer voting no. Because the supervisor who chairs the committee moved the amended language, the ordinance will return to the board for a required second reading and final passage.

Speakers quoted in this article appear in the Oct. 3 Board meeting record. Ending: Supporters framed the item as a public-right-of-way and public-safety measure; critics said a meaningful solution to bicycle theft will require separate, targeted policing and broader homelessness interventions.