http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/09/BAP817HBAI.DTL

S.F. is fed up, and loitering law passes easily
C.W. Nevius
Saturday, May 9, 2009
When the Board of Supervisors passed a strict anti-loitering ordinance Tuesday, some expected a firestorm of protest.

So far? Nothing but the sound of crickets.

Is this really liberal, laissez-faire, San Francisco? Loitering laws have always been a red flag for civil-rights groups. And this one, which would cite a person who "remains as a pedestrian for period of over three minutes within 10 feet from the entrance of a nightclub" between the hours of 9 p.m. and 3 a.m., sounds so restrictive that you'd think it would infuriate nightclub owners.

Nope. So far there's barely been a peep of complaint. It even passed the left-leaning Board of Supervisors on a lopsided 9-2 vote. What happened?

It's simple: The violence and crime at the city's nightclubs has finally reached the tipping point. Everyone, the club owners, the politicians, and the general public have gotten the message: The shootings, muggings, and street riots have to stop.

"The reason this ordinance got nine votes out of a pretty progressive Board of Supervisors is that people feel something has to be done," said Supervisor David Campos.

As for the club owners, who often face claims that they are too lenient with troublesome customers, consider the case of Terrance Alan, a founding member of the Entertainment Commission and a nightclub owner.

"Have you noticed," he asked as the ordinance was being debated, "that no one from the nightclubs is here complaining? I don't know of any business owner who wants to be the place where you are going to get beat up. It makes no sense."

Kevin Ryan, director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, thinks the law may be the first of its kind in the nation.

"We thought that was going to be the tough one, and it whizzed right through," Ryan said. "This could be one of those situations where we could be leading the nation."

Anti-loitering laws are often prime targets for lawsuits - and for good reason. They can easily be challenged on grounds of First Amendment rights to "peacefully assemble," especially when they are written too broadly. A Chicago anti-loitering law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999.

But that law, which allowed police to arrest people who "remain in one place with no apparent purpose," was far too vague.

That's why those who wrote this ordinance made a point to frame it in the narrowest possible terms. It only applies in front of nightclubs, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. Police officers must issue a warning first, and standing in line, smoking in a designated area and waiting for a bus are all written into the ordinance as accepted activities.

However, Michael Risher of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California has serious concerns about how this will be enforced.

"Whenever you are making it illegal to stand on the sidewalk for more than 181 seconds," Risher said, "you are raising the specter that the officers are only enforcing the ordinance the way they want to."

"It's great that it keeps people 10 feet away from the entrance," said Marvis Phillips, the public safety chairman of the Alliance for a Better District 6. "But what do you do after that?"

But Entertainment Commission Executive Director Bob Davis said it is an important change.

"These sidewalk Romeos come up and want to create a problem and you can't move them," he said. "The security guards in particular like this piece."

That's the theory. In practice, the success of this measure will depend on how it is enforced. But for now, we have a rare moment at City Hall - everyone is happy.

"In the battles that get waged," Alan said, "I think we need to remember that the most effective way to achieve change is through consensus."

What a concept.