A few weeks ago, I was walking around near the Panhandle in SF on the way to a friend’s house. I rounded the corner from Haight onto Stanyan at the edge of Golden Gate Park and honestly stopped in my tracks. There was a huge gathering of homeless people outside of the entrance of the park. There were men, women, dogs, backpacks, and blankets crowded in front of the McDonald’s on Stanyan. I know there is a large population in SF, especially in the Haight area, but there was a jaw-dropping amount of people in this one area. Then, this week looking for something to write my blog post about, I found an article in the New York Times about the rising concern regarding the homelessness and crime that plagues this particular McDonald’s, and how it has recently worsened.
One of the indicators of the increase of the problem is the volume of calls. There were 412 calls made to the police in the past year from that specific McDonald’s, and this does not include calls made directly to the local police station. That averages to over one call per day. This relates to the professional policing technique that treats the citizen as just a call-maker. Yet community policing comes into play as well with the involvement of the Haight Ashbury Improvement Association. The community has identified this as a serious problem and has really tried to voice it to the rest of the community and the police.
The article points to the sit/lie ordinance passed in 2010 as the cause of the increased problem. This ordinance bans sitting and lying on public sidewalks and has simply displaced the homeless in that area, as we learned in Banished. The article criticizes this displacement as not addressing the root of the problem and simply taking care of the visual aspect.
I looked at the Yelp page for this specific restaurant to gauge the public’s reaction to this area and almost every review mentioned the homeless problem. The reviews were often humorous, but did actually touch on the serious issue that plagues the area. One of the reviewers said this: “the menu selection is enhanced with the added options of buying hash, used hyperdermic needles, crack or stolen bus transfers on the way in and out of the restaurant.” Not only is the presence of these people just a nuisance to some, but there is serious crime and dangerous activity centered in this space.
Contrasting to this environment, the Whole Foods across the street experiences none of the problems of the McDonald’s. This could be because of the distance from the entrance of the park, or the higher prices of food, but many have pointed to the fact that Whole Foods has employed a private security guard. This relates to the idea of surveillance that we have covered in the course and how it can be a powerful deterrent to crime. The most interesting part of this, though, is that the city police have been pushing McDonald’s to employ the same technique! I think this is a perfect example of privatization seeping into the public sphere. I believe the police are becoming increasingly reliant on private corporations to do their jobs for them.
I have heard of McDonald's restaurants from every part of the state having problems controlling the homeless population from loitering outside of their stores. Even in Los Angeles area this is a problem, and I have heard horrific stories such as putting bleach on leftover food from the night when workers take it out to the dumpster so homeless people will not be encouraged to loiter at the late hours waiting hopefully for some free food. As far as the difference between the loitering by McDonald's versus Whole Foods, I definitely agree that the private security guard makes the difference.
ReplyDeleteHowever, McDonald's is such a big chain and is worth much more than Whole Foods, surely they could afford at least one private security guard for several stores in dire need of extra policing. I think that the brand of "McDonald's" versus the brand of "Whole Foods" and the clientele each store attracts differentiates the increased homeless population by McDonald's instead of Whole Foods. It is true that McDonald's is much cheaper than Whole Foods, but also with the obesity epidemic in America, I feel that there is a strong stigma attached to McDonald's especially because of the recent court cases against the chain. McDonald's today does not have the same wholesome family image it had when it first started, now it is associated with unhealthiness and poverty, partly due to the cheap menu and the fact that people in poverty are more likely to be overweight or obese because of the lack of affordable healthy options. Because of this stigma, homeless or "deviant" members of society would feel more appropriate loitering outside of McDonald's rather than a Whole Foods because of the clientele that is more likely to eat at the former store.
Heather H.
This article clearly reflects many of the issues raised by Beckett and Herbert in their book, "Banished". The reason for the high number of homeless around this particular McDonalds, as noted, is most likely due to the sit/lie ordinance passed in the city. As Beckett and Herbert point out, merely displacing the homeless doesn't get rid of them or solve any of their problems, it merely concentrates them in small areas. This specific McDonalds site then, so close to the park where many homeless are allowed to stay, has become the desired location for the homeless population to gather. What surprised me most about this article, isn't the fact the homeless have been banished from so many public areas like sidewalks, but that not as many measures have been taken to keep these "undesirable" people away from private property. If these people are as involved in drugs as the article makes them out, it seems like there is reason to issue SODA orders to keep these people away. Also, as mentioned in "Banished", many similar private businesses sign contracts allowing police to remove homeless from their private property, banishing homeless from all like places (all parking garages, all McDonalds, etc.). This seems like it would be McDonald's best bet in reducing the homeless numbers opposed to constantly badgering the police with phone-calls looking for help.
ReplyDeleteIn ElDorado, the police there are apparently becoming more technologically savvy and becoming more up to date in their methods, or "modernizing" their department. It seems as though SFPD may need to do the same if they want to appease local private businesses and promote consumerism. While stay-away orders are a few decades old (at least in Seattle) it appears as if SF hasn't completely grasped this concept when it comes to the private sector. While adopting such methods is questionable in morality and efficacy, it does appear to be the trend amongst modernized police departments. This particular area of SF seems to parallel a pre-gentrified ElDorado during a time where private police and new technologies were needed to reduce crime and disorder. It seems then, that to at the very least appease the public, that both ElDorado PD and SFPD need to adopt these private policing strategies to ease the collective consciousness.
TJ MAXX
After reading this article, there were a few core points that really stuck out to me: 1) the various displacement tools used to address the homelessness problem; and 2) the potential consequences of increased banishment techniques. The sit/lie ordinance of 2010, advocated for by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Haight Street merchants, has been targeted as a primary cause of the upsurge in homelessness and criminal activity around this McDonald’s. After investigating this ordinance, I found that “repeat offenders who ignore police instructions to stand up could be fined up to $500 and sent to jail for up to a month.” This demonstrates a policy implementation’s role in displacing certain segments of the population and its tendency to concentrate on punitive (and sometimes fiscal) mechanisms as opposed to alternative solutions to underlying social problems. The hiring of private security guards raises several different issues, but I want to focus on its ability to extend the bounds of displacement and exacerbate the situation. I stumbled across an article that speaks about this same McDonald’s elimination of the Dollar Menu and its effects on the street population. This corporate-driven decision can be seen as a tactic to further marginalize the poor and subject them to displacement by prompting them to eat and gather somewhere else, somewhere cheaper. This article even claims that while some “eat less [and] have to get more money,” when officers roll through, they tell these people that they can’t “sit on McDonald’s patio unless they buy something, [leaving] no choice but to move on.” If McDonald’s hired private security (again) and it proved to be efficient like Whole Foods, this would act as a substitute for public law enforcement’s policing (i.e. roll-throughs) and invest discretionary policing power (and ‘front-line’ displacement capabilities) in this private agent. I believe that the combination of the ordinance, menu change, and reliance on private security would fulfill safety/aesthetically-based concerns but at the cost of these people’s livelihoods and spatial capacities.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed by Beckett and Herbert, banishment simply relocates the problem, leading to expanding spatial segregation and constraints on physical mobility/access. The original blog article highlighted the fact that the sit/lie ordinance “moved the problem several blocks from the Haight to [Golden Gate Park], where sitting and lying remains perfectly legal.” With private security, the same will surely happen with McDonald’s in which those assembled around that area will be forced to migrate to other locations, such as GGP. The ever-increasing visible presence of these individuals coupled with the public’s growing negative attitudes towards them (e.g. as drug users/sellers, homeless, vagrants) leads me to believe that this could potentially pave the way for future banishment strategies such SODA orders, merchant trespass admonishments, and possibly Golden Gate Park exclusions. In Eldorado, I hypothesize that the expansion of commercialization and gentrification (and thus accommodations of corporate and residential interests) will gradually govern the political and public mindsets, expelling these segmented populations and forcing them to retreat to the only available site, the public park, (as is the apparent developing case for SF) where subsequent displacement will occur (e.g. park exclusions). If this social problem persists to the extent that it becomes a city-wide, park-concentrated issue in SF, the lack of representation in the political arena for these individuals could possibly lead to banishment. I remain optimistic that the citizens of San Francisco wouldn’t let it get to that level, but when public safety and “urban disorder” factor into popular discourse, the outcome may not be so clear-cut.
J. Robles
This blog is a perfect example of the problems of professional policing and banishment. What strikes me as odd is why the Mcdonald’s stopped hiring private security. Perhaps it wasn’t profitable enough to continue the added security. In other words customers will still come even with the presence of homeless and drug dealers. I think the corporation will continue to rely on public law enforcement or public resources to try to solve the problem. It is unfortunate that public resources are spent on protecting private enterprises, particularly enterprises like Mcdonalds which will continue to pull public resources. It is not until their profits become highly threatened that they will hire private security. As public resources diverge toward protecting private enterprises and away from preserving public order, it is likely that law enforcement with the decrease and funneling of funding will consequently rely more on private assistance, such as Target. It is a cycle that pulls resources away from the public interest toward private interest.
ReplyDeleteAs new economic and social fears begin to heighten/develop in Eldorado, pushing for the “modernization” of the police and the expansion of “tough” on crime policies such as banishment, it is evident that professional policing will be incapable of handling the increase of calls, particularly calls to protect private interests rather than to protect constitutional rights. Eldorado would eventually have to rely more on the private sector to help maintain order because of McDonalds’ reluctance to pay for their own security.
-jelizondo
Until we resolve some of the underlying tensions and causes for why these people are homeless, it will continue to remain a pressing problem. Many San Francisco officials thought by passing the sit/lie ordinance that the sidewalks would be cleared of the homeless. And they have been, except now they are all at this McDonalds. Even if McDonald hired private security, the homeless would simply migrate to another area. I think in order to ease the tensions between private business and the homeless we should look to community policing tactics. First off, community policing attempts to lower the number of calls through solving the problem causing it. However, I don't think aggressive broken windows policing will work here, because it was shown in Banished a large percentage of people disobeyed their stay away orders. Perhaps by engaging in certain lever pulling techniques will these problems be solved.
ReplyDeleteIn Eldorado, housing has been increasingly difficult to come by especially for the new immigrants from Mexico and Central America. The problem of high cost housing could be partially responsible for the increased homelessness. By providing more government funded low cost housing, some of the homelessness could be mitigated and both businesses and citizens would benefit.
-H. Hui