Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances 'chop shop' bill after heated public comment over policing and homelessness
Summary
After nearly two hours of public comment and debate, the Land Use Committee voted to forward a police-code ordinance targeting so-called bicycle 'chop shops' to the full Board; opponents said it would criminalize homeless people and enable wrongful confiscations, while supporters said it targets organized theft and public-rights obstructions.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee on July 10 voted to forward to the full Board a proposed amendment to the Police Code that would prohibit assembly, disassembly, sale or distribution of bicycles and bicycle parts on public property under specified conditions commonly described as 'chop shops.' Sponsor Supervisor Jeff Sheehy said the measure targets visible street operations that the city currently lacks consistent tools to address and presented a definition intended to distinguish criminal operations from lawful activity: examples listed included five or more bicycles, frames or cables cut on three or more bicycles, or five or more bicycle parts in a public right of way. Sheehy said the proposal uses administrative citations, “no monetary penalty,” and a 15-day right of appeal.
Public comment ran extensively and sharply divided the room. Opponents — including the Coalition on Homelessness, Homeless Youth Alliance and multiple speakers from activist groups — said the ordinance would effectively criminalize homeless people who repair or recycle bikes, would permit confiscation of property when owners lack receipts or serial numbers, and would disproportionately burden elderly, disabled and low-income residents. Dayton Andrews of the Coalition on Homelessness told the committee the bill “wrongfully criminalizes unhoused people for owning bicycles” and argued that recycling and repair are economic activities for many who lack other options. Other commenters cited legal concerns and potential Fourth Amendment issues raised in filings referenced in the packet.
Supporters at times urged stronger targeting of organized buyers/resellers. Brian Wiedenmeier, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, acknowledged bike theft is a real problem and urged amendments to focus on buyers and resellers; other residents and merchants described sidewalk obstructions and public-health/hazard concerns.
Supervisors pressed for clarification on implementation and costs. Supervisor Aaron Peskin asked whether SFPD had capacity and facilities for storing seized items and raised concerns about presumption of guilt and civil asset forfeiture; Sheehy said Harvey Rose (city analyst) had indicated no fiscal impact and reiterated the sponsor’s intent not to criminalize homeless people. Supervisor Tang asked about how the numerical thresholds (for example, five bikes) were chosen; Sheehy said the number came from discussions with police officers experienced in areas where the problem is endemic.
After debate, Supervisor Katie Tang moved to send the ordinance to the full Board with a positive recommendation. The committee held a roll-call vote; the motion passed with supervisors Peskin and Peskin (record shows one dissenting supervisor recorded as 'Paskin' in the roll call) registered in dissent. The committee’s recommendation does not enact the ordinance; it will face final consideration by the Board on July 18.
