Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Space Ordinances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police Commission to hear sit‑lie concerns at Feb. 24 community meeting; commissioners press for enforcement data
Summary
After debate about jurisdiction and joint hearings with the Board of Supervisors, the Police Commission tentatively placed the proposed sit‑lie ordinance on its Feb. 24 community meeting agenda and asked the department for two years of enforcement statistics, arrest/prosecution outcomes and cost details to inform any legislative proposal.
Commissioners at the San Francisco Police Commission debated how best to vet a proposed sit‑lie ordinance — whether the Police Commission should hold its own hearing, ask for a joint hearing with the Board of Supervisors, or let the supervisors lead the legislative process.
Commissioner Petrie de Jesus and others urged that the commission gather facts before legislation is drafted: what laws currently apply, how enforcement has functioned, how many arrests or citations occurred in recent years, and what the public‑cost implications are. One commissioner noted an outstanding commission resolution (82‑04) from 2004 concerning family notification after officer‑involved shootings and said related process changes should be addressed alongside any new legislation.
The commission discussed scheduling constraints and community burden (bringing organizers and residents to two hearings a week apart). To balance timeliness and opportunity for public input, the commission tentatively penciled the sit‑lie matter for its community meeting on Feb. 24 (Castro/Mission area) and asked staff to pursue a joint hearing with the Board of Supervisors or to ask the supervisors to continue their hearing a week or two if necessary so the commission can hear the matter first.
Commissioners asked the department to provide a fact‑based packet ahead of the hearing: enforcement statistics for 2008–2009, counts of arrests and citations, prosecution outcomes, and estimated costs (for example, the per‑case cost of a trespass arrest and processing). The department said it is willing to vet enforcement status, applicable municipal code, and the practical implications of any proposed ordinance and to bring district captains and merchants to provide local perspectives.
What happens next: the sit‑lie issue was tentatively scheduled for the Feb. 24 community meeting; the commission requested enforcement data and cost estimates from the department and will coordinate with the Board of Supervisors about a possible joint hearing or a short continuance of the supervisors' calendar.
