Last Call on the “No Sweeps” Rule

You Don’t have to Go Home, But You can’t Stay Here

I spent the better part of my young adult life as a cocktail waitress and bartender throughout the city of San Francisco. I worked at the Savoy Tivoli, Club 181, DNA, DV8, The Royal Oak, to name just a few fine and not-so-fine establishments. It was a great job. I earned major money for college and travel, but also learned a lot about people and life in general. 

While the bar was open, my role was to sell drinks. Eventually, however, it was also to remind patrons that the end was near. Last call started at around 1:00 AM, then a few minutes before 2:00 we, the workers, had to inform those who remained to exit the premises. 

It wasn’t always easy. A good number didn’t want to go, but staying wasn’t an option. 

For those who rebuffed our instructions, security came in handy. With a firm hand on a shoulder and a, “let's go buddy,” they steered the resisters to the door. 

And out they went, into the early morning darkness.

Just where those bleary customers ended up after we bolted the doors behind them so we could clean was not our concern. Of course that doesn't mean we didn't worry and wonder sometimes, but overall the assumption was that their final destination was their business. 

I often draw on those memories regarding San Francisco’s so-called “homeless situation.” It seems that whenever somebody says that we shouldn’t allow people to create a campsite on public sidewalks, the next question is, “But where will they go?” 

Maybe I have an overabundance of faith, but in my experience people tend to figure out what they need to do when they have no alternative.  

What I do know: if we allowed customers to remain in the bar after closing, many would have settled in until the break of dawn. Some would never leave. 

This is not to say that people with no fixed address don’t need help with their next steps. Oh they do.

Far too many people living on the streets are extremely sick and require medical, psychiatric, and addiction intervention. They will slowly and painfully perish without it. Far too many people come to San Francisco’s permissive shores for the cheap, potent, illegal drugs. They can do them on the streets and no one will stop them. 

That most people end up in tents because the city is too expensive or they lost their jobs is a lie perpetrated by people who stand to gain something, from their own employment to power. 

What this situation has done to the community at large is devastating. It's ruined small and large businesses and has hurt families, seniors, low income immigrants who live in the most impacted neighborhoods. The squalor and danger has decimated San Francisco’s very reputation. 

Yet the Coalition on Homelessness has fought to keep people in the most desperate conditions on the street. 

Calling the act of removing tents “sweeps,” they took the matter to court, claiming it is unconstitutional for local governments to remove encampments if the inhabitants do not have a next place to go in mind.  

For a moment, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with them. In December of 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu (who’s own city of Albany bans street camping) issued an injunction making it very difficult for the officials to remove the tents. 

Today, July 8, 2024, that changed. The Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit rulings. Now the city of San Francisco has the legal right to tell people they need to gather their things, it’s time to go. 

It's a harsh ultimatum, though. It’s not OK to be cruel. People are clearly hurting; they are dying. We must be humane and ethical.

Therefore this is our cue as residents to get tougher on city officials and insist that they make it easy for people to access life-saving services. Otherwise it's last call for them too. This is an election year, after all. 2:00 AM is quickly approaching - as are the bouncers.