It doesn’t make sense.
Why in the world would Santa Monica officials want to ban sleeping on the streets in the downtown core when everybody knows that homeless people are much easier to kick when they’re already on the ground?
Leave it to the politicians to mess everything up. If they want to do away with the homeless in the tourist district, they should flat out ban the homeless. Or make it OK to punt the penniless in the head. Neither approach sounds very legal, mind you, but the same can be said for this “sleeping” beauty.
But this is California, where the will of the people routinely supersedes constitutional law. Well, that’s not really fair to say. In the case of Roulette vs. Seattle, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that sidewalks are indeed for walking, not sleeping.
They’ve yet to rule on head-punting.
Of course, supporters of the ban maintain the new law is about public safety. That sidewalks and storefronts littered with sleeping bodies are dangerous to walk on. They’d have you believe there’s a mutant strain of navigationally challenged citizens stumbling down the Promenade and that our elected officials are merely legislating some obstacles away.
Make no mistake: This ban addresses public uneasiness, not security.
Being aggressively panhandled can be a scary thing, especially if the person chasing you smells funny, has bad hair and, in all likelihood, is on drugs.
But then again, it’s hard to chase someone if you’re lying down; the “transients” aren’t any less threatening when they’re awake, right? And if they can’t sleep outside Banana Republic, doesn’t it stand to reason that they could wind up snoozing on my front lawn?
This case raises a host of personal-liberty issues. Like ‘em or not, beggars have as much of a right to be on the Promenade as you or I have to walk around them and say, “No, I can’t spare any change.” As much of a right as conglomerates such Hooters and McDonald’s have to send Santa Monica’s mom and pop shop owners into early retirement. Surely, the progressive college kids and arty hipsters who congregate there are up in arms about this draconian ban.
“No, I can’t spare any change.” — This case raises a host of personal-liberty issues. Like ‘em or not, beggars have as much of a right to be on the Promenade as you or I have to walk around them and say
4EB,“As far as what their rights are, most of (the homeless) are here because they don’t want to follow society’s rules,” said Cindy (who, like Cher, needs but one name), 21. “All they do is lie around and shoot heroin, anyway.”
Yes, but soon they’ll have to shoot it STANDING UP. That’ll teach ‘em.
Cindy, who was shopping at Urban Outfitters, sports a big tattoo smack dab in the middle of her chest. Years ago, that was an unmistakable mark of the anti-establishment. Now, it amounts to nothing more than an indelible power-tie or pin-striped suit — a tribute to mainstream exploitation of the “alternative” lifestyle.
“I don’t think the issue is to do away with those people,” Cindy said. “We’re not telling them they can’t be here.”
Not yet, anyway. But it’s only a matter of time before they officially get the boot.
And speaking of boots, they’ve got the trendy steel-toed variety for sale at Urban Outfitters. They ought to come in handy once that head-punting ruling comes down.
Dan Dunn is a resident of Santa Monica and freelance writer
PULLQUOTE: This case raises a host of personal-liberty issues. Like ‘em or not, beggars have as much of a right to be on the Promenade as you or I have to walk around them and say, “No, I can’t spare any change.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 1, 2002. Read the original PDF.