Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Space Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Legal and Civil‑Liberties Concerns About Mayor’s 'Civil Sidewalks' Ballot Measure
Summary
Mayor Newsom’s proposed sit‑lie ordinance to ban sitting or lying on sidewalks drew sharp questions from supervisors and vocal public opposition citing constitutional risks and unclear targeted conduct. Mayor’s staff said legal review supports the initiative and projected minimal costs.
The Rules Committee held a charter‑mandated hearing on a mayoral initiative described in the meeting as the "civil sidewalks" or sit‑lie ordinance, which would add a section to the city’s police code aimed at keeping sidewalks clear for pedestrian use. Jason Elliott, representing the mayor’s office, said the proposal fills a gap because "there's no law that squarely addresses the issue of someone who lies down or sits down on a sidewalk for hours at a time." He said the city attorney and district attorney had been consulted.
Supervisors pressed the mayor’s representative on what specific conduct the ordinance would criminalize and whether existing policies already allow officers to require people who obstruct sidewalks to move. Chair David Campos and others said prior hearings raised unanswered questions about the measure’s scope and constitutional risks.
Civil‑liberties advocates and members of the Sidewalks for People Coalition told the committee the measure is misnamed and risks criminalizing benign public behavior. The coalition’s representative, Bob Arthur Westort, cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Chicago v. Morales) and warned of due‑process concerns: "An individual's decision to remain stationary in a public place for innocent purposes is part of personal liberty protected by the due process clause," he said.
The mayor’s staff responded that legal precedent from other jurisdictions supports ballot prohibitions on certain behaviors and that the controller expected little additional cost to implement the ordinance. Supervisors registered split views: some argued the measure was political and unnecessary given existing laws and department general orders; others said voters should weigh in.
The committee took public comment and heard promises from both advocates and opponents to continue campaigning for public hearings and the November ballot audience education.
The hearing did not result in final action; supervisors directed additional analysis and noted the item will appear on the November ballot as a voter initiative notice required by Proposition C (2007).
