The debate around Proposition L, the civil sidewalks ballot measure, gives us a chance to talk about what it means to be a progressive in San Francisco in 2010. Of course, the cause of most homelessness is social inequity and bad public policy that must be addressed with long-term solutions. In the short term, I grow weary of a lock-step response from those claiming to put forth the progressive position. Why don't they respect the experiences of neighborhood residents who are frustrated with bully behavior in the Haight and are trying to eliminate it?
The proponents of Prop L are part of a long tradition of grassroots organizing in San Francisco. It's a cheap shot to call them anti-homeless, when they're fighting thugs – often homophobic, misogynistic, and violent, especially to the homeless. I never would have voted for giving the police more power in the old days, when they were beating us up and arresting us for being gay. But these are different times and the San Francisco police force is more inclusive of LGBTs, women, and minorities than ever before. Prop L merely gives the police the authority to tell sidewalk blockers to move along without a complaint from a citizen, which rarely happens for fear of reprisals. Even this is limited to the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., and first time offenders get a warning and not a citation.
It's disrespectful to the homeless – and paradoxical – to give bad behavior a pass, under the guise of protecting the homeless. When residents of the Haight brought this problem to their supervisor, Ross Mirkarimi was like a deer in headlights, afraid to do anything that might be perceived to challenge his progressive cred. So Proposition M was born, mandating street patrols, but avoiding giving cops the authority to deal with sidewalk blockers. And thanks to "progressive" board President David Chiu, if Prop M gets more votes than Prop L, then Prop L doesn't go into effect – even though one measure doesn't conflict with the other.
The progressive label, which I proudly wear, should be a description of one's values, not a doctrine to adhere to. I want to be free to weigh each issue for myself and not feel I have to tow a particular line. I'm offended when the opponents of Prop L say, "Harvey Milk was against sit/lie." What crap. Aside from the fact that I don't agree Harvey would have opposed Prop L, I recoil at the underlying message: "Do the progressive thing. Follow our hero and do as we say he would have done (and don't think for yourself").
I learned a lesson years ago about following the crowd. A splinter group of the wonderful Bay Area Gay Liberation called a quick demonstration against gay gentrification in the lower Haight to show our solidarity with African Americans who were being pushed out. When we showed up at the home of the gay guys, we were met by shocked anger from the neighbors, mostly African American grandmothers who were thrilled their new neighbors had displaced a drug house that was ruining the neighborhood. Boy was I embarrassed. Therein lies the danger of mindlessly following the "approved" position and not thinking for oneself.
Prop L isn't a panacea, but it could give the residents in the Haight, and elsewhere, respite from the bullies. The passage of Prop L, which now requires the defeat of Prop M, could also send a message to our supervisors to have the guts to think for themselves.
Naphtali Offen is a UCSF tobacco documents researcher and a longtime gay activist.