Bayside distributing signs for new law to businesses
A new law designed to remove sleeping vagrants from downtown doorways is slower in making a difference than business owners had hoped for.
The effectiveness of the law, which police started to enforce Feb. 27, has been called into question because of an 11th hour amendment approved by the Santa Monica City Council in October, when the ordinance was passed.
Critics say the amendment, which requires any business that doesn’t want people sleeping in its doorway to place a sign in the window saying so, was “slid in” into the law’s language at the last minute.
If there is no sign posted, police can’t enforce the law, which prohibits sitting or lying in downtown doorways from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Of the hundreds of businesses situated downtown, only 32 have the new signs posted, said Santa Monica Police Sgt. Ira Rutan, the supervisor of the Third Street Promenade detail. There are roughly 90 businesses on the Promenade and 27 of them have a sign citing the law.
For those businesses, Rutan said the SMPD has been able to cite or arrest 25 individuals for breaking the law.
“We enforce the law as it’s written,” Rutan said, adding the SMPD is routinely patrolling the downtown area during the early morning hours to find potential violators, but only on property that has signs posted.
“We have no legal authority if there isn’t a sign posted to take any action,” Rutan said.
Some critics say the reason only 25 percent of the businesses have the sign is because they don’t want to advertise that they have a vagrancy problem. Others point out that many of the stores along the Promenade are owned by corporations with strict policies about signage on their retail floors.
Councilman Ken Genser, who made the motion to include the sign requirement, said the distinction separates those who want people sleeping in their doorways from those who don’t.
“I brought it up because some people don’t have a problem with it and people need to sleep somewhere,” he said, adding that vagrants who sometimes sleep outside of his downtown office on Wilshire Boulevard don’t appear to pose a hazard.
However, others believe anyone sleeping outside poses public safety hazards. The law was passed under that notion, as Council members and the Bayside District Corp., which manages the downtown core with the city, cited safety and public health concerns as the reason for the law.
Bayside formed a public safety committee last summer to address concerns over transients’ anti-social behavior. Residents, tourists and business owners have complained for years that transients urinate and defecate in doorways of downtown businesses, creating unsanitary conditions.
After months of heated debate, the committee introduced the ordinance to the Council last fall — without the sign requirement.
Barbara Tenzer, of Tenzer Commercial, who represents many downtown businesses and property owners, and was involved in the public safety committee, said the Council has made the law ineffective.
“It appears that all the time we spent between July and October having meetings and having every retailer and restaurateur on the Promenade sign a petition begging the city to pass an ordinance was a waste of time, ” she said. “What was all that work for? To pass a law that doesn’t work.
3F2, “They need to remove the sign requirement. If anyone wants people to sleep in their doorways, they can put a sign up that says so,” she added.
Tenzer also said retailers find it offensive that they are now required to put a sign up advertising that they have people lying in front of their businesses.
“We asked them to pass a law, not put up a sign, ” Tenzer said. “Are you really helping people by allowing them to sleep in doorways? If they want to help, this is the best they can come up with?”
Kathleen Rawson, executive director of Bayside, said it’s taking a lot of time and energy to educate business owners about the sign requirement.
“It’s cumbersome,” she said. “We wanted to avoid a difficult process... I would have preferred that there would be no sign requirement. Posting should have been for people who don’t mind (people sleeping in doorways.)”
Bayside officials have made hundreds of the signs and distributed them to downtown businesses, but not many have made it into the public’s view.
4EC,“They put it up and then it disappears,” Rawson said. “It gets lost in the shuffle and is just one more thing to do in opening and closing the stores.”
Bayside officials have tried to simplify the process by inserting a ready-to-go sign in this month’s edition of the Bayside Beat, the organization’s newsletter distributed to businesses downtown.
“It doesn’t matter what it looks like, as long as the language is the same,” Rawson said.
The law prohibits people from sleeping in doorways bounded by the east side of Ocean Avenue, the north side of Wilshire Boulevard, the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, and the south side of Pico Boulevard. The law also applies to the Main Street commercial area, which includes businesses on Pico Boulevard south to the city border, and from Nielsen Way to Second Street.
It also is unlawful to sleep in vestibules, doorways and under stairways in the alleys, which require signs being posted by the business owner. No signs are currently posted in the alleys, Rutan said.
SMPD Chief James T. Butts Jr. told the Council last fall when it was considering the law that the less restrictions the better. But it also is up to the business owners to use the tools they have been given to help police enforce the laws, he said.
288,“I can understand the reluctance of a proprietor to post a sign indicating there is a problem,” he said. “Third Street officers are encouraging business owners to take control of their property and it would be much more effective if every doorway had a sign.”
“I can understand the reluctance of a proprietor to post a sign indicating there is a problem. Third Street officers are encouraging business owners to take control of their property and it would be much more effective if every doorway had a sign.” — — JAMES T. BUTTS JR. SMPD chief
Tenzer and other business owners want the city to remove the sign requirement.
“The property owners, restaurateurs and the business owners have done their job but (City Council members) tweaked on their job,” she said. “Hopefully, the Council will recognize the mistake they made. Whether it was intentional or not they need to change it.”
µ9– 4,menu 4,
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 10, 2003. Read the original PDF.