San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener and Mayor Daniel Lurie will announce today the reintroduction of a state bill that allows local police to enforce fencing operations of suspected stolen goods on Mission Street and the rest of the city.
“Criminal organizations are fueling retail theft and bringing violence and chaos to our streets, displacing legitimate street vendors, harming local businesses, and undermining public safety. The SAFE Streets Act holds these disruptors accountable and allows our communities to flourish,” said Wiener in a press release on Monday.
If approved, the SAFE Street Act (San Francisco Allows Fencing Enforcement on our Streets) gives the board of supervisors the ability to draft a list of commonly stolen goods. If a vendor is selling one of those items and does not have a vending permit, or proof of purchase, the merchant is subject to an infraction.
Three violations could result in either another infraction, a misdemeanor, or up to six months in a county jail. It will be up to law enforcement to decide what penalty a person receives for the third violation. An aspect they may consider is whether a person is from the neighborhood where they’re selling items, said a member of Wiener’s office.
The bill will not apply to vendors selling food or those who have a receipt or permit to sell their items.
The bill gives the police the ability to enforce these rules instead of Public Works employees. The latter are currently in charge of dealing with vendors, but they have been subject to harassment while on the job and will only work when police are nearby.
The bill walks back SB 946, which decriminalized street vending across the state in 2018. The legislation was crafted by Los Angeles legislators to protect street vendors from police harassment.
The legislation proposed by Wiener will only apply to San Francisco.
The legislation has support from Lurie, The Mission Street Vendors Association; Clecha, a Mission based nonprofit working to achieve financial equity for Latinx residents; District 3 Supervisor Danny Sauter; District 5 supervisor Bilal Mahmood; District 8 Supervisor Rafael Mandelman; and Assemblymembers Catherine Stefani and Matt Haney. It is unclear whether District 9 supervisor Jackie Fielder will support it.
Earlier this month, Fielder said she had concerns about inviting more policing in the midst of the new federal administration’s efforts to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
When asked on Friday if she still felt the same way, Fielder said she couldn’t comment until she had read the bill’s text. As of Friday, she said, Wiener’s office had not yet sent her the text.
SAFE Street Act is a new version of last year’s SB 925, which was killed in the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee on Aug. 15 , when chair Buffy Wicks announced the bill had been suspended.
Former District 9 Supervisor Hillary Ronen, a supporter of the bill along with many of the same groups that are supporting this version, blamed its demise on Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, but a member of his office denied that the legislator had worked on SB 925. Wick’s office declined to comment.
Rivas and Wicks have not replied to requests for comment on whether they would support the bill before the publishing of this story.
There are two new amendments to the revised bill. First, the length of time it will be operative is eight years, compared to SB 925’s at five. Second, the penal code attached to the misdemeanor will fall under miscellaneous, instead of larceny.
“By taking on fencing, we are addressing retail theft, improving public safety, and adding another tool to help us clean up our streets.” said Lurie in a press release on Monday.
The politicos will make the formal announcement today at a press conference at 2081 Mission St. at 10:30 a.m.
The whole “anyone selling food can do whatever they want” system we’re operating under is wild to me. We spent the 20th Century coming up with *rules* for food service, to ensure safety. Now, whatever. Permits? That’s old-fashioned.
And if I were a taqueria with safety inspections to comply with, rent to pay, employer mandates to pay, insurance, etc., I’d be pretty annoyed by the freelance sidewalk taquerias competing with me, but with none of my responsibilities.
this article is about people selling stolen items, laws that have to be enforced by Police and DPW. if you want to go after sidewalk food sales I think you need to talk to Public Health…
The problem is that people who need to make money to survive will keep on doing that even though they’re not supposed to. You can lock them up, I suppose, but the U.S. already incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country in the world. Plus, what will people do when they get out and now have a record? You can fine people, but if they had the money to pay those fines they wouldn’t be selling this stuff in the first place.
So what, precisely, is your proposal to stop this problem?
Downvoting might make you feel better, but it doesn’t answer the questions I posed. (Likely because you can’t.)
It’s a good question.
It sounds like Sen. Weiner is arguing that this is a problem of organized crime: “Criminal organizations are fueling retail theft and bringing violence and chaos to our streets, displacing legitimate street vendors, harming local businesses, and undermining public safety.”
There are, apparently, legal means to be a street vendor in the Mission, if that is your best option for making ends meet (and that hopefully do not require shoplifting tubes of toothpaste from Wallgreen’s).
So, yes, fine and imprison the gangsters that run these fencing operations.
That would still require SF policing, work. They currently do have a legal means of incarcerating illegal theft rings. See stories about them arresting people for that… Creating a strike 3 system would still require SFPD to actually do that same work, yet it nigh-mandates the court system to fine, wrist-slap or ROR offenders even beyond what they already have. Sure, fines are easier – which actually solves the problem when enforcement lags behind regardless? It’s whackamole, a fishing trip. Street vendors are going to pay the fines? It’s the same judges that we have now who will decide how this applies.
Cynthia,
Could be a bot assigned to downvote anything you say or that’s what I tell myself and I don’t know when ‘downvote’ came on the scene or how people get that power like emperor at Roman game.
lol
(I guarantee you I’ll get same 2 downvotes always)
Go Niners !!
h.
It’s about time that this terrible problem is being addressed – and I certainly hope to God that our Supervisor, Jackie Fielder, will support this. It is honestly vital to turning around the mess that the Mission has become – and to saving us from complete and utter deterioration and decay. I love our neighborhood and I want to see it return to its former state as a vibrant, multicultural district, where residents are free to enjoy art, music, and thriving small businesses. Thank you in advance, Supervisor Fielder, for supporting this!
3 violations could result in another infraction, blah blah blah and after, 3 infractions could result in another form of punishment and after 3 punishments, the vendor will be subjected to a court hearing in 2028 unless he lives in the neighborhood which will results in all previous infractions being dismissed. If the product does not mention Safeway or Walgreens on it, the vendor will be rewarded.
This is a good bill – I hope it passes and it should.
For those saying “It should be a felony!!!” or “This will do nothing!!!” here is the lay of the land. Buying, selling or receiving stolen goods is already a crime that can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor (both can result in jail/prison). That will still be the case after this law is (hopefully) enacted. But that crime requires proving (a) the defendant bought, received, sold or aided in selling property that had been stolen from another, and (b) when the defendant did so, he or she knew that the goods had been stolen. The police need probable cause as to both elements to arrest, which is difficult when you just see someone selling stuff on the sidewalk that you know from common sense, but no evidence, was stolen (we don’t want the cops arresting anyone without probable cause). If you can demonstrate it, this crime can be charged, and that won’t change.
What this new law would do so is allow the creation of a list of commonly stolen goods in retail theft operations. This would create a presumption that obviates the need for independently establishing probable cause. Anyone selling those designated items would need a permit, or proof that they had purchased the goods – and if they lack such proof than the police will confiscate the goods and issue citations for the first two violations. So the goods get confiscated, period, which is a good deterrent. Then, upon a third incident, the D.A. (not the police) can decide whether to charge this as a misdemeanor with up to a six-month jail sentence, another good deterrent. So this fills a gap in the law. Serious cases can currently, and will be, chargeable as felonies. The first two strikes for less serious cases under the new law result in confiscation, changed from no action under current law. And repeat offenders can be charged with a misdemeanor and face jail time. And, of course, per the new Congress, any undocumented immigrant even arrested for theft faces deportation. These are not silly, meaningless measures.
You explain the situation quite well, SFAtty. My issue is that given the chaos at the Bart plazas and the reality of policing / prosecution in SF, these rules require the seller of stolen goods (1) get caught (probably happens a very small % of the time), (2) get cited (we know cops don’t want to do BS paperwork so doesn’t happen every time), (3) both those things have to happen together 3 times, (4) the DA has to bring it to court, the public defender fails to get the person off and the judge actually creates consequences. For all that to happen, my guess is that a seller of stolen goods could probably be clogging up the Bart plaza for hundreds of days before all those things happen. The whole “it’s against the law but we have to catch and cite you 3 times before there might be consequences” seems like we are once again coddling criminals
Also this only applies to SF. If these rings are actually organized as is insinuated they can easily rotate vendors through nearby cities. Or steal here and vend elsewhere. It’s a weird administrative solution to a problem that is mostly lack of existing enforcement resources or police attention ongoing. They already do prosecute the heads of these theft rings, so it’s straining credulity to think that the same enforcement effort is going to give different results because a few administrative fines are issued – will they even pay them is an open question. Then you have the chicken/egg question of fining people who are literally vending for survival, a drug habit, or both, and we think that’s going to remove their “need” to steal and vend? Typical Wiener. Look for the alternative explanation for his motivation – political spotlight, Lurie PR tie-in, hands-washing. The same judges who decide to ROR illegal vendors now will be in charge, only with another layer of abstraction between the crime and incarceration. Look tough, sound tough, same street scenes.
Anyone and everyone should not be allowed to block sidewalks .
Passageways are for all to use Unobstructed .
Maybe give these”vendors” an assigned area in a field or parking lot . With documentation , and as long as they are reporting their earnings and taxes , allow them to sell?
The encampments and drug dens blocking sidewalks everyday for years is a bigger issue .
Our block for seven years has been blocked by tents and addicts .
This is where fencing is needed .
The same idiots keep returning even after moved . The are so selfish .
ADA violations are never addressed .
This bill does not go far enough. It should cover the entire state and apply to selling food.
The “Safe Sidewalk Vending Act” needs to be completely repealed so that cities and counties can effectively regulate sidewalk vending. The legislation brought about a statewide disaster by allowing dangerous people sell stolen goods and operate illegal eateries in the public right-of-way with very little consequence. These dangerous people need an incentive to follow the law, which can only be done by credibly threatening to impose criminal penalties.
Unpermitted sidewalk vending on has impacted public health, safety, and welfare because of lack of proper food handling and storage; obstruction of public right of ways; unsafe pedestrian congestion on sidewalks; accumulation of trash and debris on sidewalks and storm drains; grease and residue on sidewalks resulting in potential slip and fall incidents; disposal of oils and grease in storm drains; and aggressive behavior and resistance to enforcement by the vendors
> “The legislation proposed by Wiener will only apply to San Francisco.”
A state law that applies to one county? State law is just that, and creating a single county carveout is dubious.
Why only a misdemeanor? This should be a felony for selling stolen items. The progressive better support this legislation. I see them blocking it to support the criminals like they have always done rather than small business and law abiding citizens.
Wiener’s been in this office for what, 8 years now? He could have put this up at any point during the massive and well-reported crisis out there for half a decade… Same with the car break in law. I guess he ran out of developers asking for favors?
Campers,
Since the scaffolding base was removed from around the perimeter of the Armory there is now ample sidewalk space for a thousand linear feet of Vendor space (Building is 390×270) and you can extend the La Piguita Flea Market along front and back and North Face of building or … 1,050 feet.
That’s 100 ten by ten spaces but determining various sizes where and I’d put Security at every corner and save space for Administration and maybe a podium/stage next to the City’s Attended bathroom.
??
Go Niners !!
h.
This is like the homeless tickets, get a stack of tickets, still nothing will happen. Where ya been, Scott? Dining with developers again?
Textbook turd layering. So we take it that Scott Wiener (and all these other ppl who have their heads sticking in each others’ behinds) think the PD is going to jump on the slippery slope of deciding what penalty a person receives? From the hood or not? After, count it, three infractions? Who’s keeping count, are we issuing punch cards?
This is a total friggin joke.